Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00386-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Wilhelm
Plaintiff
Jeannie Woodford
Defendant

Document Text:

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

STEVE WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNIE WOODFORD,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 16]

Plaintiff Steve Wilhelm is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 10, 2013, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). To date, 

Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is 

no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the undersigned 

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983.

///

Case 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 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

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 2