(PC) Lumpkin Williams v. Dr. John Garcia et al, No. 1:2007cv01065 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this 13 Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/22/2010. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 6/28/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Lumpkin Williams v. Dr. John Garcia et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LUMPKIN WILLIAMS, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01065-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM v. JOHN GARCIA, et al., 13 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Lumpkin Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2010, the Court 17 screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that 18 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 19 Section 1983. (Doc. #15.) Plaintiff was informed of the deficiencies in his claims and was directed 20 to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of the March 22, 2010 21 screening order. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. 22 Because Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint, the Court will recommend 23 dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice upheld where 25 court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to 26 amend). 27 28 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 3 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 4 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 6 shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 7 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 8 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: ie14hj May 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.