(PC) Curry v. Geddes

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL CURRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00235-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE J. GEDDES, et al., (ECF NOS. 1 & 7) Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN Terrell Curry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on February 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 7). The Court found that only the following claim should proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Geddes for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Id.). The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 9-10). On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 8). 4: UVM EO MAR SOM OC Te OY Ove

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order that was entered on April 23, 2020 (ECF No. 7), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 8), it is HEREBY }RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Geddes for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within g || fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file ] objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 } (9th Cir. 1991)). Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. ! Dated: _ May 4, 2020 [sf ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE