(PC) Mora v. Petras ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN EDWARD MORA, No. 2:20-cv-0749-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OGNJEN PETRAS, 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 May 5, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 19 alleged, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical 20 needs claim against defendant Petras, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendants 21 Austin or Kolakowski. ECF No. 4. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the viable 22 claim only or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only 23 with the viable claim against defendant Petras. ECF No. 8. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United 25 States District Judge to this case. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 wOASe 2 EUV OING VIE Re MUO IR eo AY eT 1 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendants Austin and 2 | Kolakowski be 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 v. 9 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: June 5, 2020. tid. HDeMA 12 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28