IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 6, 2012
ROBERT ELLIOT, PLAINTIFF,
S. READDY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to this court's screening of plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),*fn1 the court found that the complaint may state cognizable claims against defendants Fransham, Walker, Readdy, Moumeror, Paramvir, Gabriel, Beck, Liu, Cui, the McHenry Medical Group, Doctors Hospital of Manteca, and Doctor's Medical Center of Modesto, but did not state a claim against defendants Liau or Purvis. (Dkt. No. 7.) The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against defendants Liau and Purvis. Plaintiff chose to proceed on his original complaint, effectively choosing to terminate this action against defendants Liau or Purvis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this case.
In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Liau and Purvis be dismissed without prejudice 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 21 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).