Opinion
1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC)
06-23-2021
JORGE FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SATTERFIELD, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On June 6, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation against Defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Salzer, Bick, Boyette, Darby, and Flores-Hernandez. (Doc. 43.) The remaining claims were not cognizable. (Id.) The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Id. at 13.) On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice that he “wishes to only proceed on claims found cognizable.” (Doc. 44. ) Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order (Doc. 43), the Court RECOMMENDS that:
1. Defendants Jackson and Varney be DISMISSED; and, 2. The claims in Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED, except for its First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Satterfield, Eslick, Salzer, Bick, Boyette, Darby, and Flores-Hernandez.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.