Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276-14/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

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On November 2, 2005, the court granted defendants’ May 19, 2005, motion to

dismiss with leave amend with respect to the following claims: 1) imposition of the R suffix

caused plaintiff to suffer from increased risk to safety as to defendants Rhodes and Jett; 2) the

claims against defendants Ceaglio and Schroers based on plaintiff’s failure to link these

defendants to the alleged deprivations. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second

amended complaint.

Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the November 2, 2005, the court recommends that these

claims against defendants Rhodes, Jett, Ceaglio and Schroers be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 71 Filed 01/19/06 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 the remaining claims

against defendants Rhodes, Jett, Ceaglio and Schroers be dismissed.

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 1/18/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wh2276.fr

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 71 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2