Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01812-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01812-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)

DAYS

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2010, the Court

issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint stated some cognizable claims against certain

Defendants. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state any other claims against any other

Defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court

that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff

notified the Court that he does not wish to amend and is willing to proceed only on the claims found

to be cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, these Findings and Recommendations now issue. See

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies

and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims and state law claims be dismissed.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

1

Case 1:08-cv-01812-AWI -GBC Document 17 Filed 04/30/10 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

days 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 served and filed within ten (10) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01812-AWI -GBC Document 17 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2