Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00147/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. SADLER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0147-TLN-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2020, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint had 

alleged, for screening purposes, a viable excessive force claim against defendant Sadler, but had 

not alleged any viable claims against defendant Anderson. ECF No. 17. The court informed 

plaintiff he could proceed with the viable claim only or file an amended complaint within 30 

days. Id. Plaintiff has elected to proceed only with the viable claim against defendant Sadler. 

ECF No. 18. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Anderson 

be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

Case 2:19-cv-00147-TLN-JDP Document 23 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 15, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-00147-TLN-JDP Document 23 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 2