(PS) King v. CA Dept. of Water Resources

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELISE KING, No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., Defendants.

On March 5, 2020, the court determined that service of the complaint is appropriate for defendant California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), but not for remaining eight defendants.1 ECF No. 14. The court informed plaintiff she could proceed with her Rehabilitation Act claim against defendant DWR or file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim against DWR. See ECF No. 16.

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiff’s claims, with the exception of her Rehabilitation Act claim against DWR, be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2.41 VV VLeY ONIN EP MUO ow PN OP ET er OY eo | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

6 | DATED: August 14, 2020. tid, PDEA 8 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE