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.

Malik Jones v. D. Swingle

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


March 11, 2011

MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. SWINGLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds on his second amended complaint filed June 14, 2010.

On January 7, 2011, the court found that the second amended complaint stated potentially cognizable claims that defendants Swingle, Medina, Barker, Luther, and Harper were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that defendant Burgett retaliated against plaintiff for filing inmate appeals by confiscating plaintiff's wheelchair. The court further found that the remaining additional claims asserted in the second amended complaint, including those against Wilcox and Blanthorn, were deficient. The court gave plaintiff 30 days to either submit materials for service of process on defendants Luther and Harper or to file an amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies identified by the court.

The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not submitted the materials necessary for service on defendants Luther and Harper, has not file an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Luther, Harper, Wilcox and Blanthorn, as well as the deficient claims identified in the undersigned's January 7, 2011 order, be dismissed without prejudice.

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).

20110311

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.