Morris v. Nangalama et al

Filing 41

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/6/14 RECOMMENDING that defendant Duc be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON E. MORRIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1202 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DR. NANGALAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an action filed

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 4, 2014, plaintiff was granted thirty days in

19

which to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March

20

28, 2014. In his second amended complaint, plaintiff named Dr. Duc as a defendant. However,

21

plaintiff included no charging allegations as to defendant Dr. Duc. (ECF No. 39, passim.) In his

22

original complaint, plaintiff also included no charging allegations as to defendant Dr. Duc. (ECF

23

No. 7 at 6.) In light of plaintiff’s failure to provide charging allegations, defendant Duc should be

24

dismissed from this action.

25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Duc be dismissed from
this action.

27

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
1

1

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

2

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

4

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

5

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

6

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

Dated: May 6, 2014

8
9

/morr1202.56

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2