Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01171-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Botkin
Defendant
Fanning
Defendant
Roberts
Defendant
Jabir Sadiq
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JABIR SADIQ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1171 LKK EFB P 

vs.

LT. ROBERTS, 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 July 2, 2010, the court found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable

excessive force claim against defendants Roberts, Botkin and Fanning, and informed plaintiff he

could proceed against those defendants on an excessive force claim only or file an amended

complaint to attempt to state an additional cognizable claim against Roberts, as well as

cognizable claims against Flores, Scavetta and Ferguson. The court also informed plaintiff that

it would consider plaintiff’s decision to proceed only as to defendants Roberts, Botkin and

Fanning on the excessive force claim, as consent to the dismissal of his due process claim

against Roberts, as well as his claims against Flores, Scavetta, and Ferguson. On July 27, 2010,

plaintiff returned documents for service against defendants Roberts, Botkin and Fanning. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 18 Filed 08/05/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s due process claim

against Roberts, as well as his claims against defendants Flores, Scavetta and Ferguson 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

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: August 5, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 18 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2