Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00039-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0039 FCD KJM P

vs.

SILVEA GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2010, the court ordered the United

States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s complaint on defendant Gellette. Process directed to

defendant Gellette was returned unserved because defendant Gellette is no longer employed at

the address provided by plaintiff. This is the second time process directed to Gellette has been

returned unserved because plaintiff failed to provide an address where he can be served. 

Because it does not appear that plaintiff can provide the United States Marshal with the

information necessary for the Marshal to serve defendant Gellette with process, the court will

recommend that defendant Gellete be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Gellette be

dismissed without prejudice.

1

Case 2:08-cv-00039-FCD-KJM Document 97 Filed 04/27/10 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

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 twentyone 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.” 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). 

DATED: April 26, 2010. 

1/mp

arms0039.dis

2

Case 2:08-cv-00039-FCD-KJM Document 97 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2