Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344-9/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

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1344 JAM EFB P

vs.

ERVIN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 12, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants

Simmerson, Cochran and the Chief Medical Officer of HDSP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

with leave to amend. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed against defendants Dr.

David Medina, Dr. James, Dr. Rita Waterman and Officer Hitchcock by submitting materials for

service within 20 days, but the court would construe his election so to proceed as consent to

dismissal of his claims against defendants Simmerson, Cochran and the Chief Medical Officer of

HDSP without leave to amend. 

On December 22, 2008, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Media,

James, Waterman and Hitchcock. The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/16/09 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

against defendants Simmerson and Cochran without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against defendants Simmerson and

Cochran be dismissed without prejudice. 

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: March 16, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/16/09 Page 2 of 2