Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Padilla v. Rooter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 27, 2010

FIDEL PADILLA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROOTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 20, 2010, the court found that the complaint stated cognizable First Amendment claims against defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete for their alleged interference with plaintiff's outgoing mail. The court further found that plaintiff had failed to state cognizable supervisorial liability, access to the courts, retaliation, conditions of confinement and medical care claims, and dismissed those claims with leave to amend. The court gave plaintiff 30 days to submit materials for service of process on defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano and Garrete, or, alternatively, 30 days to file an amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable supervisorial liability, access to the courts, retaliation, conditions of confinement and medical care claims. The times for acting passed and plaintiff did not submit the materials necessary to serve process on defendants, did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court's order.*fn1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

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).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.