Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00619/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00619-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIK JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0619 GEB EFB P

vs.

D. SWINGLE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed January 8, 2010, the court found that plaintiff had stated sufficient

charging allegations against defendants Swingle, Medina, Barker and Reglie and informed

plaintiff he could proceed against those defendants only or file an amended complaint that also

states a claim against defendant McDonald. The court also informed plaintiff that the court

would consider his decision to proceed only as to defendants Swingle, Medina, Barker and

Reglie as consent to the dismissal of McDonald. On March 11, 2010, plaintiff returned

documents for service against defendants Swingle, Medina, Barker and Reglie. 

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

McDonald be dismissed without prejudice. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-00619-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/24/10 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

2

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

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: March 23, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00619-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2