(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-2374-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC; STEVE KLOEBLEN; SUSAN HALTOPP; MICHAEL BALDWIN; SHANA COLEMAN; VICKIE LEROUX; J.C. ODOM; CHAD CARLSON; and CHRIS HELLER, Defendants.

20 On July 31, 2020, the court determined that service of the complaint is appropriate for defendant Velocity Technology Solutions, LLC (“Velocity”), but not for remaining eight defendants.1 ECF No. 29. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with his FMLA interference claim predicated on the termination of his employment against defendant Velocity or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim against Velocity. See ECF No. 30.

1 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). wOASe 2 LUV □□□ ETUING VIE Re MVOC OP POR MOP Ter PAYS eT 1 Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that plaintiffs claims, with the exception of his | FMLA claim against Velocity claim, be dismissed without prejudice.

3 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)(1). Within fourteen days || 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).

10 | DATED: August 14, 2020. tid, PDEA 2 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE