Thompson v. Robinette et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/15/16 recommending that defendant Rosales be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK SHANE THOMPSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1928 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. ROBINETTE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Pursuant to this court’s screening of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1915A(a), the court found that the complaint may state cognizable claims against defendants

19

Cohn, Armstead, Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, but did not state a claim against defendant

20

Rosales. (ECF No. 13.) The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original

21

complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against defendant

22

Rosales. Plaintiff chose to proceed on his original complaint against defendants Cohn, Armstead,

23

Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, effectively choosing to terminate this action against

24

defendant Rosales.

25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Rosales be dismissed
from this action without prejudice.

27

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
1

1

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

2

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

4

shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

5

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

6

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

Dated: July 15, 2016

8
9
10
/cw/thom1928.dsm

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2