(PC) John v. Hughes ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSEPH JOHN, No. 2:20-cv-984-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Z. HUGHES, 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 September 18, 2020, the court informed plaintiff he could proceed 18 with a potentially viable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Z. Hughes only or file an 19 amended complaint, as his allegations against defendants Baughman and Heise could not survive 20 screening. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with 21 the claim identified by the court. ECF No. 10. 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 23 States District Judge to this action. 24 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Baughman 25 and Heise 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 wOASe 2 EUV EV EAINI RAP MVOC, tot PO OY ove 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: September 30, 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