(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, No. 2:19-cv-0307-JAM-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 19, 2019, the court determined that service of the 18 complaint is appropriate for defendants Dirisu and Loterzstain, but not for defendant Austin. 19 ECF No. 20. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with his First Amendment retaliation 20 claims against defendants Dirisu and Loterzstain and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 21 claim against defendant Loterzstain or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff 22 has elected to proceed only with the claims against defendants Dirisu and Loterzstain. See ECF 23 No. 21. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant 25 Austin 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 g 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