Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Jones v. Cantu

June 10, 2009

MAURICE D. JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. CANTU, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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 72-302 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)(1)-(2).

On October 27, 2008, the court screened plaintiff's complaint, found that it did not state cognizable claims against defendant S. Whitaker, and explained to plaintiff that he either could proceed with his action solely against defendants J. Cantu, D. Whisler, S. Correa, Brito, Rowe, McAfee and Tuers, or file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a claim also against S. Whitaker. On February 9, 2009, plaintiff submitted the documents necessary for service on J. Cantu, D. Whisler, S. Correa, Brito, Rowe, McAfee and Tuers.

The court construes plaintiff's election to proceed solely against defendants J. Cantu, D. Whisler, S. Correa, Brito, Rowe, McAfee and Tuers as consent to dismissal of all claims against S. Whitaker.

Accordingly, defendant S. Whitaker is hereby dismissed from this action.

20090610

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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