Brooks v. Lee et al

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/29/2019 RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Arnold be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. 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

RODNEY BROOKS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0374-WBS-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

S. LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 15, 2019, the court determined that service of the complaint

19

is appropriate for defendant Lee, but not for defendant Arnold. ECF No. 14. The court informed

20

plaintiff he could proceed with his claim against defendant Lee or file an amended complaint

21

within 30 days. Id. The time for amending has passed and plaintiff has elected to proceed only

22

with the claim against defendant Lee. See ECF No. 17.

23
24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant
Arnold be dismissed without prejudice.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

3

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

4

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

Dated: April 29, 2019.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2