Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01479-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fletcher
Defendant
Patterson
Defendant
Nathan Webster
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

NATHAN WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FLETCHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1479 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2024, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff 

adequately stated an excessive force claim against defendant Patterson while his claims against 

defendant Fletcher were insufficient. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given the option of amending 

the complaint or proceeding immediately on his cognizable claims against defendant Patterson. 

Id. at 3. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the 

court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and 

recommend dismissal without prejudice of defendant Fletcher. Id. The time for plaintiff to notify 

the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an election 

or otherwise responded to the order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/23/24 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 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in the November 19, 

2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 10), all claims against defendant Fletcher 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 twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 20, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01479-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2