(PC) McNeal v. Ervin, et al, No. 2:2007cv02240 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/21/09 recommending that claims against defendants R.K. Wong, R. Floto, N. Grannis, T. Felker, Rana, Lasky, Felice and Taylor be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) McNeal v. Ervin, et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VERNON WAYNE McNEAL, Plaintiff, 12 13 ERVIN, et al., / 15 17 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. 14 16 No. CIV S-07-2240 LKK EFB P Defendants. 11 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 28, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants R. K. 19 Wong, R. Floto, N. Grannis, T. Felker, Rana, Lasky, Felice and Taylor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A, with leave to amend. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed against defendants 21 Ervin and Evert by submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court would construe 22 his election so to proceed as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendants R. K. Wong, 23 R. Floto, N. Grannis, T. Felker, Rana, Lasky, Felice and Taylor without leave to amend. 24 On December 18, 2008, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Ervin and 25 Evert. The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against defendants R. K. 26 Wong, R. Floto, N. Grannis, T. Felker, Rana, Lasky, Felice and Taylor without leave to amend. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against defendants R. K. Wong, R. 2 Floto, N. Grannis, T. Felker, Rana, Lasky, Felice and Taylor be dismissed without prejudice. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 4 to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being 5 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 6 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: January 21, 2009. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
