Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02712/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02712-1/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

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2712 DFL EFB P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. 1983. 

On March 15, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the Solano County

Sheriff’s Department pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend. The court informed

plaintiff he could proceed against defendants J. Castillo, Brad Kamman, Danny Hall, Officer

Joseph, Officer Tijero, Officer Jones, Sgt. Smith and Doctor Shepperd 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 Solano County Sheriff’s Department without leave to amend. 

On March 27, 2007, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants J. Castillo,

Brad Kamman, Danny Hall, Officer Joseph, Officer Tijero, Officer Jones, Sgt. Smith and Doctor 

Case 2:06-cv-02712-ALA Document 8 Filed 05/01/07 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

Shepperd.

The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against the Solano County

Sheriff’s Department without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against the Solano County Sheriff’s

Department 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: May 1, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02712-ALA Document 8 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2