Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00749-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1657 DFL PAN P

vs.

DEPUTY CASTRO, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By court order filed February 8, 2005, the court found that the

complaint stated a claim against inter alia, defendant Davis and ordered plaintiff to complete

summons for service within thirty days. By court order filed April 13, 2005, the court ordered

service by the United States Marshall on, inter alia, defendant Davis. On October 26, 2005, the

United States Marshall returned service unexecuted as to defendant Davis; the notation on the

form indicated that plaintiff had withdrawn his complaint against defendant Davis. In an order

filed December 28, 2005, the court indicated that it appeared the plaintiff wished to withdraw

claims against defendant Davis and that the court would dismiss such claims under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a) unless plaintiff indicated within 10 days that he wanted to pursue

them. Plaintiff has failed to respond in any way to this aspect of the December 28, 2005 order. 

Case 2:06-cv-00749-RRB-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/25/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendant Davis be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

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

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

DATED: August 24, 2006.

14

mars1657.fta

Case 2:06-cv-00749-RRB-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2