Opinion

(PC) McKenna v. Cisneros

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jun 22, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EDWARD PHILLIP MCKENNA, No. 2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

14 T. CISNEROS, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 By order filed April 11, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

21 ECF No. 53. The undersigned dismissed the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims alleged

22 to have occurred on February 18, 2021 involving defendants Cisneros, Leahy, Garcia, Tyler,

23 Coronado, Sayama, Diaz, Brown, Dunn, Valdez and Knudson, but granted plaintiff leave to

24 amend these claims within thirty days. ECF No. 53 at 11. Plaintiff was granted an extension of

25 time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations that were included in the April 11,

26 2023 court order. ECF No. 56. The elapsed time period has now expired and plaintiff has not

27 filed any objections or a third amended complaint. Plaintiff was advised in the April 11, 2023

28 order that his failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this

1 | action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to

2 || these claims. See ECF No. 53 at 11.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Eighth Amendment excessive

4 | force claims alleged to have occurred on February 18, 2021 involving defendants Cisneros,

5 || Leahy, Garcia, Tyler, Coronado, Sayama, Diaz, Brown, Dunn, Valdez and Knudson be dismissed

6 || without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days

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

10 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

11 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

12 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

13 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14 || Dated: June 22, 2023 fed) / dha

MIG f- A.

CAROLYNK.DELANEY

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22 12/mcke1 294. fta

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.