Barrera v. Hubbard et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/27/10 Recommending that this action be dismissed re 1 . These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez. 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 the parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

(PS) Barrera v. Hubbard et al

Doc. 8

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 vs. SUSAN HUBBARD, CMF Warden; DR. BICK, CMF Medical Officer; DR. DITOMAS, CMF Doctor, Defendants. / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL A. BARRERA, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3220 JAM EFB PS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 4, 2010, the court found that the complaint stated a cognizable claim against defendant DiTomas, but not as to defendants Hubbard or Bick. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Hubbard and Bick were dismissed with leave to amend. The court gave plaintiff thirty days to submit materials for service of process on defendant DiTomas, or, alternatively, to file an amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against defendants Hubbard and Bick. //// //// ////
1

Dockets.Justia.com

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 times for acting passed and plaintiff did not submit the materials necessary to serve process, nor did he file an amended complaint.1 Accordingly, 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 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). DATED: July 27, 2010.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
2

1