(PC) Davis v. Lynch

Opinion

MAURICE DARONTE DAVIS, No. 2: 23-cv-00845 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The undersigned issued a separate order screening plaintiff’s first amended complaint. In the order screening the first amended complaint, the undersigned found that the first amended complaint stated the following potentially colorable Eighth Amendment claims for relief against defendant Lynch: 1) plaintiff was struck by debris falling from the damaged roof; 2) plaintiff was housed on a cell with “major leakage;” and 3) plaintiff was exposed to toxic mold. The undersigned ordered service of defendant Lynch as to these claims. In the order screening the first amended complaint, the undersigned found that the remaining claims against defendant Lynch and all claims against defendant Governor Newsom were not potentially colorable. For the reasons stated in the order screening the first amended complaint, the undersigned herein recommends dismissal of the remaining claims against defendant Lynch and all claims against defendant Governor Newsom. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims in the first amended complaint against defendant Lynch, but for the three claims found potentially colorable in the screening order, and all claims against defendant Governor Newsom be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). Dated: August 28, 2023 i Aectl Aharon UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dav845.56