From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Conrad

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 12, 2021
No. 2:19-cv-2551 DB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-2551 DB P

02-12-2021

KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. CONRAD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims officers refused to give him his property in retaliation for filing staff complaints and civil suits.

On January 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 22.) Thereafter, the court directed defendants to indicate whether they had any objection to plaintiff's dismissal. (ECF No. 23.) Defendants Baker, A. Konrad, Nelson, and Tillo have filed a statement of non-opposition and also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice signed by the plaintiff. Defendants have not indicated in this action whether they consent or decline to //// consent to magistrate jurisdiction. In light of the lack of consent, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed in light of plaintiff's notice and defendants' statement of non-opposition.

Upon screening the complaint, the court found plaintiff had not stated a claim against defendant Baughman. (ECF No. 8 at 6.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed with the complaint as screened or to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff elected to proceed with the complaint as screened and voluntarily dismiss all other claims and defendants. (ECF No. 11.) --------

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a District Judge to this action; and

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice.

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 thirty (30) 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." Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: February 12, 2021

/s/_________

DEBORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12
DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/howe2551.f&r.dism


Summaries of

Howell v. Conrad

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 12, 2021
No. 2:19-cv-2551 DB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Howell v. Conrad

Case Details

Full title:KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. CONRAD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 12, 2021

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-2551 DB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021)