(PC) Ruiz v. Sadler ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-0147-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 C. SADLER, 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 April 15, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 19 alleged, for screening purposes, a viable excessive force claim against defendant Sadler, but had 20 not alleged any viable claims against defendant Anderson. ECF No. 17. The court informed 21 plaintiff he could proceed with the viable claim only or file an amended complaint within 30 22 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the viable claim against defendant Sadler. 23 ECF No. 18. 24 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Anderson 25 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 2 fOUVVY E TE ORIN MVOC GO PIA Oe AY ee 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: May 15, 2020. 7 Dating : heh bie g EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28