(PC) Dennis v. Castrillo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROME ROBERT DENNIS, No. 2:19-cv-0828-JAM-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 CASTRILLO, 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 December 23, 2019, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint 18 had alleged, for screening purposes, a viable First Amendment retaliation claim against 19 defendants Castrillo and John Doe, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendant 20 Avsdin. ECF No. 12. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the claim against 21 defendants Castrillo and John Doe or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has 22 elected to proceed only with the claim against defendants Castrillo and John Doe. See ECF No. 23 15. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant 25 Avsdin 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: January 22, 2020. tid, PDEA g 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