Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01976/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01976-3/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 

RONNELL DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. FELDER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1976-JAM-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 December 23, 2019, the court determined that service of the 

complaint is appropriate for defendants Harris and Crook, but not for defendant Felder. ECF No. 

8. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed with his Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims and First Amendment retaliation claims against 

defendants Harris and Crook or file an amended complaint within 30 days. Id. Plaintiff has 

elected to proceed only with the claims against defendants Harris and Crook. See ECF No. 11. 

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

Felder 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-01976-DJC-JDP Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 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: January 22, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01976-DJC-JDP Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2