Opinion
1:21-cv-00861-EPG (PC)
07-26-2021
IKEEM JARMER HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. J. VASQUEZCOY, et al., Defendants.
(ECF NOS. 1, 5, 7)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND A DEFENDANT BE DISMISSED
Plaintiff Ikeem Jarmer Hudson is civilly committed at the Metropolitan State Hospital and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 4). Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 28, 2021. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint, concluding that only Plaintiff's excessive-force claim against Defendant J. Vasquezcoy should proceed past screening. (ECF No. 5, p. 13).
The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with the screening order. (Id. at 13-14). On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 7).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order that was entered on June 24, 2021 (ECF No. 5), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claim found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs excessive-force claim against Defendant J. Vasquezcoy.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.