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.

Hoffman v. Corning Police Dept.

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 17, 2015

ROBIN HOFFMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CORNING POLICE DEPT., et al., Defendants.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 1, 2014. The court's own records reveal that prior to the filing of this complaint, on November 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants. (See No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P).[1] Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint filed in this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this action to a district judge.

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 fourteen 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).


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.