Johnson v. Fox

Filing 32

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/7/2017 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HERBERT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2492 JAM DB P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROBERT W. FOX,

15

Defendant.

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. Upon screening, the court found plaintiff’s complaint failed to

19

allege a potentially cognizable claim for relief against any defendant. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff

20

was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. In March 2017, plaintiff requested a

21

sixty-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. The court granted that request on

22

March 20, 2017. (ECF No. 30.)
On May 15, plaintiff filed a document with the court entitled “Motion to Close Case.”

23
24

Therein, plaintiff states that he is now in disciplinary segregation and “this is a whole different

25

case now.” (ECF No. 31.) It appears that plaintiff wishes to dismiss this action. Defendants

26

have not made an appearance. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), plaintiff’s request

27

shall be honored.

28

////
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 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.” Plaintiff 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: June 7, 2017

11
12
13
14
15

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/John2492.59

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2