(PC) Lovest v. Larosa

Opinion

ANTWONE LOVEST, No. 2:19-cv-1060-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had alleged, for screening purposes, viable equal protection and retaliation claims against defendant LaRosa, but had not alleged any viable claims against any other defendants. ECF No. 20. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with the viable claims only or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the viable claims against defendant LaRosa. ECF No. 21. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. ///// ///// 2 VEY PRINCE MVOC Ge PI Te AY ee

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Diaz, Lizarraga, Knight, Charon, and Walizer be dismissed without prejudice. 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, any party 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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner □□□ Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 4, 2020. i tid, PDEA D EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE