United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2024

(PC) Webster v. Fletcher

(PC) Webster v. Fletcher
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided December 23, 2024
(PC) Webster v. Fletcher

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATHAN WEBSTER, No. 2:24-cv-1479 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FLETCHER, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff adequately stated an excessive force claim against defendant Patterson while his claims against defendant Fletcher were insufficient. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendant Patterson.

22 Id. at 3. 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 recommend dismissal without prejudice of defendant Fletcher. Id. 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.

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

1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the November 19, || 2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 10), all claims against defendant Fletcher 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 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).

11 | DATED: December 20, 2024 12 thin Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.