(PC) Towner v. Knowles et al, No. 2:2008cv02823 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/25/2010 RECOMMENDING that pltf's claims against dfts Knowles, Hubbard and Lewis be dismissed w/out prejudice. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Towner v. Knowles et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VERNON TOWNER, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 vs. MICHAEL KNOWLES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 14 / 15 16 No. CIV S-08-2823 LKK EFB P Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 20, 2009, the court found that plaintiff had stated 18 a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Lesane. The court further found that 19 plaintiff failed to state cognizable claims against defendants CDCR, Knowles, Hubbard and 20 Lewis. The order informed plaintiff he could proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against 21 defendant Lesane or file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a cognizable claim against 22 Knowles, Hubbard and Lewis.1 The court also informed plaintiff that the court would consider 23 his decision to proceed against defendant Lesane as consent to the dismissal of his claims against 24 25 26 1 In the November 20, 2009, order, the court also found that plaintiff’s claim against CDCR could not be cured by amendment and recommended that plaintiff’s claim against that defendant be dismissed without leave to amend. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 defendant Knowles, Hubbard and Lewis without prejudice. On December 28, 2009, plaintiff 2 returned documents for service of process on defendant Lesane and on January 5, 2010, the court 3 ordered the United States Marshal to serve process on defendant Lesane. The court finds that 4 plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of his claims against defendants Knowles, Hubbard and 5 Lewis without prejudice. 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claim against defendants Knowles, Hubbard and Lewis be dismissed without prejudice. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 14 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Dated: February 25, 2010. 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.
