Townsel v. Richard Ciummo & Associates et al, No. 1:2015cv00894 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and the case closed. Findings and recommendations referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii, with objections due within thirty days of service of this order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/25/2015. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DAVID TOWNSEL, 9 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:15-CV-894---SMS Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. RICHARD CIUMMO & ASSOCIATES; KEVIN R. WEIMER, Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff David Townsel brings the instant complaint in pro se and in forma pauperis 16 against defendants Richard Ciummo & Associates and Kevin R. Weimer for actions related to 17 Plaintiff’s representation in a criminal matter. 18 On October 9, 2014, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), 19 and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. Doc. 4. The Court 20 granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service of that order. 21 Plaintiff was advised that he was not required to file an amended complaint, but failure to do so 22 would result in dismissal of the action. The order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend 23 was filed and served on the same day. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be dismissed without prejudice 26 27 28 and the case closed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72- 1 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 2 California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 3 objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 4 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review 5 the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 6 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 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.