(PC) Candler v. Prather et al, No. 2:2017cv00023 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/14/2018RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's claims against defendants Kelso, Arya, and Spelman be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Candler v. Prather et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH CANDLER, 12 No. 2:17-cv-0023-JAM-EFB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PRATHER, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 26, 2018, the court found that plaintiff had stated a 19 potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Prather and Romney for 20 delaying plaintiff’s ability to decontaminate from O.C. pepper spray. ECF No. 9. The court 21 informed plaintiff he could proceed against those defendants only or file an amended complaint 22 within 30 days to cure the defects in his claims against defendants Kelso, Arya, and Spelman. Id. 23 The time for amending has passed and plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the claim against 24 defendants Prather and Romney. See ECF No. 12. 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Kelso, Arya, and Spelman be dismissed 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 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.” Failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: May 14, 2018. 7 8 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.