(PC) Chappa v. Shasta County Sheriff ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CHAPPA, No. 2:20-cv-0379 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On June 11, 2021, the undersigned screened the complaint and determined that it failed to 18 state cognizable claims against the Shasta County Sheriff or “jail warden” Tom Bonseko. See 19 ECF No. 6 at 4-5. Accordingly, plaintiff was given the option of either amending the complaint 20 or proceeding on its cognizable claims. See id. at 5-8. At that time, plaintiff was ordered to 21 notify the court within fourteen days as to how he wished to proceed. See id. at 7. 22 More than fourteen days have passed, and plaintiff has not informed the court that he 23 would like to amend the complaint. Therefore, pursuant to the court’s screening order, the 24 undersigned will recommend that defendants Shasta County Sheriff and Tom Bonseko be 25 dismissed with prejudice from this action and that the case proceed on plaintiff’s excessive force 26 claim against Deputies Vangerwin and McQuillan only. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 28 District Court Judge to this action. ] IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED, for the reasons set forth in the screening order (ECF 2 | No. 6), that: 3 1. Defendants Shasta County Sheriff and Tom Bonseko, and related claims against 4 them, be DISMISSED with prejudice from this action; and 5 2. The case proceed on plaintiff's claim of excessive force against defendants Vangerwin 6 and McQuillan. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 | (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | DATED: July 7, 2021 ~ 15 Atttarr—Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28