(PC) Salazar v. Grant ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA SALAZAR, No. 2:19-cv-1336-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BROWN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 11, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint 19 had alleged, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim 20 against defendants Grant and Singh, but had not alleged any viable claims against defendant 21 Brown. ECF No. 5. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the claim against 22 defendants Grant and Singh or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has 23 elected to proceed only with the claim against defendants Grant and Singh. See ECF No. 8. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States 25 District Judge to this case. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 1 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Brown be 2 | dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner vy. 9 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: March 10, 2020. 11 oat Sid SH EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28