Peery

(PC) Adcock v. Peery

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 20212:20-cv-01235California381 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEROME ADCOCK, No. 2:20-cv-1235 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

SUZANNE PEERY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was exposed to hazardous materials in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. By order dated November 5, 2020, the court screened the complaint and determined it did not contain any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested additional time to file an amended complaint, updated his address, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.