(PC) Lopez v. Praveen ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALVADOR LOPEZ, No. 2:21-cv-2380-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PATRICK COVELLO, Warden, 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 January 24, 2022, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed 19 with a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Praveen or he could file 20 an amended complaint in an effort to also state claims against defendants Covello, Ball, and 21 Robert. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the 22 claim identified by the court. ECF No. 11. 23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United 24 States District Judge to this action. 25 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Covello, Ball, 26 and Robert be dismissed without prejudice. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 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 10, 2022. g EDMUND F. BRENNAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28