Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01065-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUMPKIN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01065-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Lumpkin Williams (“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 March 22, 2010, the Court

screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under

Section 1983. (Doc. #15.) Plaintiff was informed of the deficiencies in his claims and was directed

to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of the March 22, 2010

screening order. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint.

Because Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint, the Court will recommend

dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice upheld where

court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to

amend).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01065-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/24/10 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

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)(1). Within thirty (30)

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 (10) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01065-AWI-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2