Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03220/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03220-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Barrera
Plaintiff
Bick
Defendant
DiTomas
Defendant
Susan Hubbard
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. BARRERA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3220 JAM EFB PS

vs.

SUSAN HUBBARD, CMF Warden;

DR. BICK, CMF Medical Officer;

DR. DITOMAS, CMF Doctor, 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On May 4, 2010, the court found that the complaint stated a cognizable claim against

defendant DiTomas, but not as to defendants Hubbard or Bick. Plaintiff’s claims against

defendant Hubbard and Bick were dismissed with leave to amend. The court gave plaintiff thirty

days to submit materials for service of process on defendant DiTomas, or, alternatively, to file an

amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against defendants Hubbard and Bick. 

////

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-03220-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/27/10 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

1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned,

plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his

current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record

address of the party is fully effective.

2

The times for acting passed and plaintiff did not submit the materials necessary to serve process,

nor did he file an amended complaint.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 fourteen 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: July 27, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03220-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2