Garland v. Skribner et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. Referred to Judge Wanger, Objections to F&R due by 4/21/2006, signed by Judge William M. Wunderlich on 3/16/06. (Robles, S)
(PC) Garland v. Skribner et al
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was filed in Sacramento on February 27, 2006, and transferred to this court on March 3, 2006. On February 22, 2006, plaintiff filed in this court civil action no. CV F 06 00198 OWW LJO P, Shaun Darnell Garland v. A. K. Scribner, et al.,. A review of the action filed on February 22, 2006, reveals that the complaint is duplicative of the complaint in this action. Plaintiff is advised that if he desires to proceed with two separate actions, he will be obligated to pay the $250 filing fee for each case, incurring a total liability of $500. Orders will be entered directing the California Department of Corrections to collect and forward to the court the filing fee from plaintiff's inmate trust account. The court will recommend that this action (no. CV F 06 270 OWW WMW P) be dismissed as duplicative. Should this action be dismissed as duplicative, plaintff will not incur A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., Defendants. vs. SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, Plaintiff, CV F 06 0270 OWW WMW P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
the $250 filing fee for this case. If plaintiff fails to file objections, this action will be dismissed as duplicative, without any financial obligation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. 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)(B). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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." Plaintiff is 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. Dated: March 16, 2006 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?