Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02224/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02224-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON TYLER HUGHES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY,

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

 _________ _______________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:09-cv-2224-LJO-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On January 25, 2010, the Court ordered the complaint dismissed with leave to amend due

to the vagueness of the complaint which prevented Plaintiff from stating a viable claim for

excessive force. (Doc. 7). The order granted Plaintiff 30 days leave in which to file an amended

complaint. (Id.) The order was served on Plaintiff on January 25, 2010. Although the time for

filing the amended complaint has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought

Case 1:09-cv-02224-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

an extension of time within which to do so.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends,

1. That the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be filed within seven

(7) days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-02224-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2