Prado v. Swarthout et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/22/17 Recommending that Defendant Jimenez be dismissed. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEJANDRO PRADO,

12

No. 2:15-cv-1866 WBS DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14

GARY SWARTHOUT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

17
18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he fell in the shower several times due to a

19

cement block impediment because the showers are not compliant with the Americans with

20

Disabilities Act. Upon screening, the court found, among other things, that plaintiff failed to state

21

a claim against defendant Jimenez. (See Mar. 24, 2017 Order (ECF No. 15).) The court gave

22

plaintiff thirty days to elect whether to proceed against some defendants or amend his complaint

23

to attempt to state a cognizable claim against Jimenez. On April 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a Notice

24

of Submission of Documents in which he chose to proceed on his first amended complaint, serve

25

defendants Arnold, Blackwell, Matteson, and Swarthout, and dismiss defendant Jimenez without

26

prejudice. (ECF No. 16.)

27

////

28

////
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Jimenez be dismissed
from this action without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

6

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

7

and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

8

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

9

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: May 22, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/prad1866.fr

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2