(PC) Reed v. Peery

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 27, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-02373·Unknown

Opinion

ANTHONY J. REED, No. 2:20-cv-2373 WBS AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS R. PEERY, et al., Defendants. On December 29, 2021, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and it was determined that his complaint stated a claim against Defendant J. Nakken only. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was directed to inform the Court whether he wished to amend the complaint or to proceed on the viable claim, and he was given fourteen days within which to do so. Id. at 9-10. At that time, Plaintiff was told that a failure to return the Notice on How to Proceed would result in the Court assuming that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened, and that the dismissal without prejudice of all defendants other than J. Nakken as well as of Claims Two and Three would be recommended. More than fourteen days have passed, and Plaintiff has not returned the notice informing the Court how he wishes to proceed. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend that Claims Two and Three of the complaint, as well as all defendants other than J. Nakken, be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons explained in the screening order, ECF No. 6, which is hereby incorporated in full. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants R. Peery, D. Clain, M. Hudson, J. Hartgrove, and C. Guillen as well as Claims Two and Three be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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, plaintiff 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.” 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: January 26, 2022 ~ Chee ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Reed v. Peery, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Reed v. Peery ((PC) Reed v. Peery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related