(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS DEFENDANT 13 v. 14 SATTERFIELD, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge 16 17 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it states cognizable 18 retaliation claims against Eslick, Jackson, Salazar, and Satterfield, but not against Flores. (Doc. 19 13.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies 20 identified in its order or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only the claims found 21 cognizable. (Id.) 22 In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he declines to file an 23 amended complaint and instead seeks to proceed on his claims against “Satterfield, Eslick, 24 Jackson, and C. Salzer.”1 (Doc. 14.) For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s 25 screening order (Doc. 13), the Court RECOMMENDS that Flores be DISMISSED as a defendant. 26 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a District Judge to this action. 27 /// 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of 3 the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver 6 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 7 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27