(PC) Curtis v. California Correctional Institution - Tehachapi, et al., No. 1:2014cv00656 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Defendant Camario Pursuant to Rule 4(M) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/19/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 12/14/2015.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PARNELL CURTIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00656-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CAMARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [ECF Nos. 55, 56] Plaintiff Parnell Curtis is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on August 12, 2014, 21 against Defendants J.G. Garcia, R.F. Tablas, R.W. Catlin, D.M. Coontz, Camacho/Camario, Mendoza, 22 L. Escalante, and I.M. Vera for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against 23 Defendants J.G. Garcia and R.F. Tablas for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 24 After a second attempt to serve Defendant Camario, previously identified by Plaintiff as 25 Camacho, the United States marshal was not able to locate or identify Camario and service was 26 returned un-executed on September 21, 2015. 27 28 On September 22, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within thirty days why Defendant Camario should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 1 Procedure. (ECF No. 56.) The thirty day time frame has passed and Plaintiff has failed to respond to 2 the order to show cause. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Camario be DISMISSED from 3 4 the action pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 7 days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 8 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838- 11 39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 15 November 19, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
