(PC)Witkin v. Snelling

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL AARON WITKIN, No. 2:21-cv-02181 DAD AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 C. SNELLING, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 13, 2024, the court screened the first amended complaint and found 19 the following claims insufficient to proceed: plaintiff’s claims against defendants Snelling, 20 Lacompte, Conner, Benavidez, and Does 1-50; Claim Two against defendants Bennamon and 21 Wheeler; Claim Four in its entirety; and Claim Six against defendants Brodie and Martinez. ECF 22 No. 23. Plaintiff was given the options of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on 23 his cognizable claims against defendants Arrezola, Damacion, Sawyer, Bennamon, Wheeler, 24 Gonzalez, Kahie, Brodie, Martinez and Pittsley as set forth in Section III of the March 13, 2024 25 screening order. ECF No. 23 at 7. Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to notify the 26 court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the 27 complaint as screened and would recommend the dismissal without prejudice of defendants 28 Snelling, Lacompte, Conner, Benavidez, Does 1-50; Claim Two against defendants Bennamon 1 | and Wheeler; Claim Four in its entirety; and, Claim Six against defendants Brodie and Martinez. 2 || Id. The time to notify the court has passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise 3 || responded to the court’s screening order. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons set forth in the 5 || screening order dated March 13, 2024 (ECF No. 23), the following claims and defendants be 6 || dismissed without prejudice: defendants Snelling, Lacompte, Conner, Benavidez, and Does 1-50; 7 || Claim Two against defendants Bennamon and Wheeler; Claim Four in its entirety; and Claim Six 8 | against defendants Brodie and Martinez. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 13 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 | (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | DATED: April 17, 2024 ~ 17 Htttenr— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28