Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01928/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01928-5/pdf.json

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

---

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 

MARK SHANE THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. ROBINETTE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1928 TLN KJN P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Pursuant to this court’s screening of plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a), the court found that the complaint may state cognizable claims against defendants 

Cohn, Armstead, Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, but did not state a claim against defendant 

Rosales. (ECF No. 13.) The court gave plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original 

complaint or filing an amended complaint that added a cognizable claim against defendant 

Rosales. Plaintiff chose to proceed on his original complaint against defendants Cohn, Armstead, 

Young, Lopez, Bates, and Robinette, effectively choosing to terminate this action against 

defendant Rosales. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Rosales be dismissed 

from this action 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 2:15-cv-01928-TLN-KJN Document 22 Filed 07/18/16 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 15, 2016 

/cw/thom1928.dsm 

Case 2:15-cv-01928-TLN-KJN Document 22 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2