(PC) Coffee v. Sisto et al, No. 2:2009cv01838 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/28/2010 ORDERING the clerk to assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that dfts Sisto and Cervantes be dismissed from this action. Assigned and Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Coffee v. Sisto et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 M.L. COFFEE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. 2:09-cv-1838 KJN P D.K. SISTO, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Pursuant to this court’s screening of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court found that the complaint may state cognizable claims against 18 defendants Rodman and Mahoney, but did not state a claim against defendants Sisto and 19 Cervantes. (Dkt. No. 7.) The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original 20 complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against defendants Sisto 21 and Cervantes. Plaintiff chose to proceed on his original complaint against defendants Rodman 22 and Mahoney, effectively choosing to terminate this action against defendants Sisto and 23 Cervantes. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the 25 Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Sisto and Cervantes be dismissed from this action. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 7 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 9 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 DATED: June 28, 2010 11 12 13 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 coff1838.fta 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.
