(PC) Carr v. Balaji ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR CARR, No. 2:19-cv-688-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. BALAJI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2021, the court informed plaintiff that he could 19 proceed with Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Balaji and Gurm and state law 20 negligence claims against defendants Balaji, Magsayo, Suson, and Gurm, or he could file a 21 second amended complaint in an effort to also state claims against defendants Church, Gates, 22 Singh, and Recarey. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to 23 proceed only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 33. 24 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Church, 25 Gates, Singh, and Recarey 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 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: February 22, 2021. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28