(PC) Jaramillo v. Tappan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDIE A. JARAMILLO, No. 2:22-cv-0075-WBS-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 T. TAPPAN, 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 7, 2022, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed 19 with a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant 20 correctional officer T. Tappan, or he could file an amended complaint in an effort to also state 21 claims against defendants R. Ehlers, Faye, and Lieutenant Manes. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has 22 elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the claim identified by the court. 23 ECF No. 11. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendants R. 2 || Ehlers, Faye, and Lieutenant Manes be 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 v. 9 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 || Dated: February 18, 2022. 1] 12 Littl □□ EDMUND F. BRENNAN 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28