(PC) Gosztyla v. Jenkins

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD GOSZTYLA, No. 2:22-cv-01706-TLN-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. JENKINS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 28, 2022, the court entered a screening order that informed plaintiff that he could proceed with potentially cognizable claims against defendants Jenkins or he could file an amended complaint in an effort to also state a claim against defendants Coker, Costa, Cantu, Holmes, Covello, and Rojas. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff elected not to amend his complaint and to proceed only with the claims identified by the court. ECF No. 10. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants Costa, Cantu, Holmes, Covello, and Rojas. See ECF Nos 11 & 16. The court inadvertently failed to also recommend the dismissal of claims against defendant Coker.

26 ///// ///// ///// ] Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated in the screening order, ECF No. 7, it is | RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims against defendant Coker be dismissed without || prejudice.

4 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).

1] || Dated: February 27, 2023. oat od i 2 13 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE