(PC) McDonald v. Newsom

Opinion

JEFFREY D. MCDONALD, No. 2:24-cv-2167-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2025, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Morano stated a First Amendment retaliation claim while his claims against defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Davis were insufficient. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claim against defendant Morano. Id. at 5. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and recommend dismissal without prejudice of defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Davis. Id. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise responded to the order. Thus, the court recommends dismissing defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Davis from this action. By separate order, the court directs defendant Morano to be electronically served with the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED for the reasons set forth in the May 5, 2025 Screening Order (ECF No. 7 at 3-5), that defendants Newsom, Jones, Chaves, and Davis be dismissed without prejudice from this action. 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 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges 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 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 12, 2025 kmh "7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE