(PC) Vaughn, Sr. v. Hood, et al., No. 2:2014cv02235 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/15/14 RECOMMENDING that defendant Foulk be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAY LEE VAUGHN, SR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:14-cv-2235 MCE KJN P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HOOD, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to this court’s screening of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A(a), the court found that the complaint states potentially cognizable claims against 19 defendants Hood and Rollands, but did not state a claim against defendant Foulk. (ECF No. 9.) 20 The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original complaint or filing an amended 21 complaint that attempted to state a cognizable claim against defendant Foulk. Plaintiff chose to 22 proceed on his original complaint against defendants Hood and Rollands, and in his notice of 23 submission of documents form, signed November 20, 2014, consented to the dismissal of 24 defendant Foulk without prejudice. (ECF No. 18 at 1.) 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Foulk be dismissed without prejudice. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 1 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 3 shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 4 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 5 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: December 15, 2014 7 8 /vaug2235.14dm 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.