(PC) Hunter v. Sacramento County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, No. 2:22-cv-01282-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROLLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Sacramento County Main Jail. He proceeds without 18 counsel in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 6, 2023, the court informed 19 plaintiff that he could proceed with potentially-cognizable claims for deprivation of out-of-cell 20 time against defendants Rolland, Calp, Bliss, Haw, Galvez, Ayers, Traxler, Minor, Sacramento 21 County, Biagi, and Ahlers or he could file a second amended complaint in an effort to also state 22 additional claims including a claim against defendant Kibak. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has elected 23 not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 24 14. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States 26 District Judge to this action. 27 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Kibak be 28 dismissed without prejudice. ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 6 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 7 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 || Dated: February 28, 2023. < EDMUND F. BRENNAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28