IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 12, 2009
GEORGE HOWELL, PETITIONER,
T. FELKER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner has responded to the court's October 24, 2008, order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of CIV S-08-1799 LKK KJM P*fn1 . Plaintiff stated that he did not realize that both actions were the same and if one action had to be dismissed, "I respectfully request that my injunction for relief be withdrawn and my civil 1983 complaint not be dismissed." Response (Doc. 13) at 3. As both cases are 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims and seek injunctive relief, the court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed. Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with the above, 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 District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 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).