Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00079/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00079-6/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

HARVEY HERRING, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 0079 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 46) 

 Harvey Herring, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s allegation of excessive force and assault and battery against Defendants Clark, Hill,

Rodriguez, Lowder, Ramirez, Jiminez, Wheeler, Curtiss, Diaz and McAlister. 

On October 31, 2006, Defendant Rodriguez moved to have the action dismissed against

her. Defendant states that the Complaint makes no allegation that Defendant Rodriguez, an

MTA, ever engaged in excessive force against him. 

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 52 Filed 12/14/06 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

On November 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion and states that he has no

objection to having Defendant Rodriguez removed from the action. (Docs. 49, 50.) 

In light of this statement of non-opposition, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Rodriguez be GRANTED and Defendant Rodriguez be

DISMISSED from the action. The action should proceed on the allegations against the

remaining Defendants. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00079-LJO -SMS Document 52 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2