(PC) Powell v. Lynch

Opinion

ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:21-cv-0782 DJC AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. LYNCH, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 28, 2024, the court screened the second amended complaint and found that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Gomes and Camacho stated a claim while his claims against defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female) were insufficient to proceed. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendants Gomes and Camacho. Id. at 4. 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 Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female). Id. at 5. 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. //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. For the reasons set forth in the October 28, 2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 20 at 3-4), defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female) be dismissed without prejudice. 2. The Clerk of Court terminate defendants Peterson, Leckie, Hayne, Pierce (male), and Pierce (female) on the docket. 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: December 9, 2024 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE