(PS) King v. CA Dept. of Water Resources ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELISE KING, No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 5, 2020, the court determined that service of the complaint is appropriate for 18 defendant California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), but not for remaining eight 19 defendants.1 ECF No. 14. The court informed plaintiff she could proceed with her 20 Rehabilitation Act claim against defendant DWR or file an amended complaint within 30 days. 21 Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim against DWR. See ECF No. 16. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s claims, with the exception of her 23 Rehabilitation Act claim against DWR, be dismissed without prejudice. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 2.41 VV VLeY ONIN EP MUO ow PN OP ET er OY eo 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: August 14, 2020. tid, PDEA 8 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28