(PC) Kindred v. Dike

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Case No. 1:19-cv-00955-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT FOUND 13 v. COGNIZABLE A. DIKE, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge 17 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it states cognizable claims under the Fourteenth Amendment against A. Dike but not against B. Phi, B. Powers, or B.

19 Price. (Doc. 6.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in its order or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only the claims found cognizable. (Id.) 22 In response to the Court’s screening order, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “desires to proceed only on the claims found cognizable … against Defendant Dike and the Doe Defendant and to dismiss Phi, Powers, an[d] Price as Defendants.” (Doc. 7.) For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 6), the Court RECOMMENDS that Phi, Powers, and Price be DISMISSED as defendants. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to a United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: February 19, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE