From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Walker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 20, 2011
No. CIV S-09-1290 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-1290 EFB P.

April 20, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

By order filed April 5, 2011, the court found that plaintiff had stated cognizable claims against defendants Virga, Brandon, Villasenor, and Parker, and informed plaintiff he could proceed against those defendants only or file an amended complaint to attempt to state additional cognizable claims against defendants Malfi and Ventimiglia. The court also informed plaintiff that it would consider plaintiff's decision to proceed only as to defendants Virga, Brandon, Villasenor, and Parker as consent to the dismissal of his claims against defendants Malfi and Ventimiglia. On April 13, 2011, plaintiff returned documents for service against defendants Virga, Brandon, Villasenor, and Parker, electing not to file an amended complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against defendants Malfi and Ventimiglia.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Malfi and Ventimiglia are dismissed without prejudice.


Summaries of

Walker v. Walker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 20, 2011
No. CIV S-09-1290 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Walker v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT G. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES J. WALKER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 20, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-1290 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011)