(PC) Lorenz v. Davis

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK LORENZ JR., No. 2:23-cv-1969 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVIS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin stated a claim while his claims against defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery were insufficient. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendants Galbraithe, Tran, and Laughlin. Id. at 7. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal without prejudice of defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery. Id. at 10. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election or otherwise responded to the order.

28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly || assign a United States District Judge to this action.

3 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the September 18, | 2024, Screening Order (ECF No. 7 at 5, 6, 10), defendants Davis, Covello, and Ullery be || dismissed without prejudice.

6 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 twenty-one days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

13 | DATED: October 21, 2024 ~ 14 _Athuer—Clore ALLISON CLAIRE 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE