(PC) Lorenz v. Davis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PATRICK LORENZ JR., No. 2:23-cv-1969 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that 19 plaintiff’s claims against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin stated a claim while his 20 claims against defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery were insufficient. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was 21 given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims 22 against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin. Id. at 7. He was further advised that if he 23 failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing 24 to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal without prejudice of 25 defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery. Id. at 10. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to 26 how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise 27 responded to the order. 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 2 || assign a United States District Judge to this action. 3 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the September 18, 4 | 2024, Screening Order (ECF No. 7 at 5, 6, 10), defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery be 5 || dismissed without prejudice. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 10 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 12 | (9th Cir. 1991). 13 | DATED: October 21, 2024 ~ 14 _Athuer—Clore ALLISON CLAIRE 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28