Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-2002 DB P
05-30-2019
RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. J. LEWIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On March 8, 2019, the Court screened plaintiff's complaint and found it to state the following claims: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim against Lewis, Swain, Cross, Rodriguez, and Baker, and (2) an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Lewis, Swain, Cross, Lesmeister, Johnson, Rodriguez, Leathern, Richardson, Gomez, Baker, Surace, and Jones. (ECF No. 5.) The remaining claims were found to be not cognizable as pled. Plaintiff was then given an opportunity to amend his complaint. Alternatively, he was informed that he could stand on his complaint, at which point the Court would issue findings and recommendations to dismiss the non-cognizable claims. Plaintiff has now filed a notice of his intention to stand on the complaint. (ECF No. 6.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and //// ////
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the Court's March 8, 2019, Screening Order, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed without leave to amend.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 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 waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 30, 2019
/s/_________
DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /DLB7;
DB/Inbox/Substantive/jone2002.scrn fr