(PC) Thompson v. Robinette et al, No. 2:2015cv01928 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/15/16 recommending that defendant Rosales be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Thompson v. Robinette et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK SHANE THOMPSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1928 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. ROBINETTE, 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 may state cognizable claims against defendants 19 Cohn, Armstead, Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, but did not state a claim against defendant 20 Rosales. (ECF No. 13.) The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original 21 complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against defendant 22 Rosales. Plaintiff chose to proceed on his original complaint against defendants Cohn, Armstead, 23 Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, effectively choosing to terminate this action against 24 defendant Rosales. 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Rosales be dismissed from this action without prejudice. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 4 shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 5 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 6 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 Dated: July 15, 2016 8 9 10 /cw/thom1928.dsm 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.