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.

Will Moses Palmer, Iii v. Dr. Richard P. Berkson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 23, 2012

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. RICHARD P. BERKSON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 10) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

Plaintiff Will Moses Palmer, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed November 14, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

On May 24, 2012, the Court screened the Complaint and ordered that by not later than June 27, 2012, Plaintiff either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in its screening order, or notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Clement and Huang on his due process claim. (ECF No. 5.) On June 21, 2012, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's first motion to extend time to August 23, 2012 in which to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) The August 23, 2012 deadline passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for a further extension of time. On August 31, 2012, the Court issued an order that, by not later than September 18, 2012, Plaintiff show cause why the claims in his Complaint, other than the cognizable due process claim against Defendants Clement and Huang, should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 10.) The September 18, 2012 deadline passed without Plaintiff having responded to the Court's August 31, 2012 order.

Plaintiff was advised that should he fail to respond, the Court would assume he wished to proceed only against Defendants Clement and Huang on his due process claim and dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.)

Accordingly, all claims asserted and all Defendants named in Plaintiff's Complaint except for his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Clement and Huang should now be dismissed.

It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims in Plaintiff's Complaint except for his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Clement and Huang and all Defendants named in this action except for Defendants Clement and Huang should now be dismissed with prejudice by the District Judge.

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). Within fourteen (14) days of entry of this order, 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121023

© 1992-2012 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.