(PC) Washington v. Spearman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWAIN WASHINGTON, No. 2:19-cv-0616-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M.E. SPEARMAN, 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 February 12, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint 19 had alleged, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant 20 Schumacher, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendant Spearman. ECF No. 7. The 21 court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the claim against defendant Schumacher or file an 22 amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim 23 against defendant Schumacher. See ECF No. 10. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 25 States District Judge to this case. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 1 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendant Spearman be 2 | dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner □□□ 9 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: March 18, 2020. i tid, PDEA D EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28