(PC) Gosztyla v. Jenkins

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01706
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:22-cv-01706-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. JENKINS, 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 November 28, 2022, the court informed plaintiff that he could 19 proceed with potentially cognizable claims against defendants Jenkins or he could file an 20 amended complaint in an effort to also state a claim against defendants Costa, Cantu, Holmes, 21 Covello, and Rojas. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed 22 only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 10. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States 24 District Judge to this case. 25 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Costa, Cantu, 26 Holmes, Covello, and Rojas 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 7 || Dated: January 4, 2023. Eg Vator Lf “Mm A; 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