Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00987/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00987-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Rodregez
Defendant
DeMarquis Sillemon
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeMARQUIS SILLEMON,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0987 LJO WMW PC

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

G. RODREGEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order February 21, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing the operative

complaint for failure to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

 In the February 21, 2008, order the court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in

his complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the

court recommends dismissal of the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for

failure to state a federal claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809

F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to th

Case 1:07-cv-00987-LJO-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/24/08 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

amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

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)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. 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 waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

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: March 24, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00987-LJO-WMW Document 14 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2