Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05824/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05824-6/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY DORIA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. TERRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05824-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

KLARICH (Doc. 26)

Plaintiff, Rudy Doria (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 15, 2006, the court issued an order requiring

plaintiff to show cause why Dr. Klarich should not be dismissed

from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. The

thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has failed to comply

with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the

Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

Case 1:03-cv-05824-LJO-DLB Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 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

27

28

2

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). th

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Dr. Klarich is

DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of June 15, 2006,

and pursuant to Rule 4(m).

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

(20) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

court. Such a 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05824-LJO-DLB Document 27 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2