(PC) Knight v. Nov ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BOBBY KNIGHT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 11 RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE 12 DISMISSED NKIRUKA NOV, et al., 13 (ECF NOS. 1 & 9) Defendants. 14 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 16 DISTRICT JUDGE 17 Bobby Knight (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. 19 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 17, 2020. (ECF No. 20 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 9). The Court found that only the 21 following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim 22 against defendant Edwards for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Id.). 23 The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either: “a. File a First Amended Complaint; b. 24 Notify the Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 25 wants to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Edwards for 26 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; or c. Notify the Court in writing that he 27 wants to stand on his complaint.” (Id. at 10-11). On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff notified the 28 Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. 1 || No. 14). 2 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on 3 || November 9, 2020 (ECF No. 9), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to 4 || proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 14), it is 5 || HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiff's 6 || Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Edwards for deliberate indifference to his serious 7 medical needs. 8 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 9 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 11 || file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 12 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 13 |] objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 14 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 15 |} (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district 17 || judge to this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _ December 9, 2020 [sf ey 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28