Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01474-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY M. BROUSSEAU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1474 RRB EFB P

vs.

ED McNAIR, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. On August 7, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) and 12(b)(6). On September 15, 2006, the court informed plaintiff that failure to file a

written opposition or a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

the motion, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an opposition or statement of no opposition and warned

him that failure to do so could result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

The 30 days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of

no opposition and has not otherwise responded to the September 15, 2006, order. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

////

Case 2:05-cv-01474-RRB-EFB Document 30 Filed 11/13/06 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

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 13, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01474-RRB-EFB Document 30 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2