Opinion
1:21-cv-01653-NONE-EPG
12-27-2021
DEANDRE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. IRS, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED (ECF NOS. 1 & 5) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
Plaintiff Deandre Lewis is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint on December 3, 2021. (ECF No. 5). The Court found that Plaintiff's claims against the IRS and the Department of Treasury regarding his failure to receive economic impact payments should proceed past screening but that the complaint failed to state any other claims. The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the Court in the screening order, filing an amended the complaint, or standing on his complaint.
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 7).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's screening order (ECF No. 5), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he wants to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in the screening order (ECF No. 7), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims and defendants be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims against the IRS and the Department of Treasury regarding his failure to receive economic impact payments.
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.