(PC) Davis v. Harris ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNELL DAVIS, No. 2:19-cv-1976-JAM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M. FELDER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2019, the court determined that service of the 19 complaint is appropriate for defendants Harris and Crook, but not for defendant Felder. ECF No. 20 8. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with his Eighth Amendment deliberate 21 indifference to serious medical needs claims and First Amendment retaliation claims against 22 defendants Harris and Crook or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has 23 elected to proceed only with the claims against defendants Harris and Crook. See ECF No. 11. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant 25 Felder be dismissed without prejudice. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 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.” Failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || Dated: January 22, 2020. 7 tid, PDEA 8 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28