Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Betti

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 15, 2009

MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
L. BETTI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2008, the court screened plaintiff's complaint, found that it did not state cognizable claims against Audetta, Bainbridge, Bishop, David, Deforest, Follosco, Ingwerson, Jackson, Lipton, McGuire, Plainer, Spehling, Vicent or Waterman. The court explained to plaintiff that he either could proceed with his action solely against defendants Betti, Brautingham, Cunningham, Hunter, Lebeck and Callison, or file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a claim also against the other defendants. On April 7, 2009, plaintiff submitted the documents necessary for service on Betti, Brautingham, Cunningham, Hunter, Lebeck and Callison.

The court construes plaintiff's election to proceed solely against defendants Betti, Brautingham, Cunningham, Hunter, Lebeck and Callison as consent to dismissal of all claims against Audetta, Bainbridge, Bishop, David, Deforest, Follosco, Ingwerson, Jackson, Lipton, McGuire, Plainer, Spehling, Vicent and Waterman

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Audetta, Bainbridge, Bishop, David, Deforest, Follosco, Ingwerson, Jackson, Lipton, McGuire, Plainer, Spehling, Vicent and Waterman be dismissed from this action.

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)(l). Within twenty 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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20090415

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.