Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McMillian v. Delgado, 1:19-cv-00444-LJO-SAB (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190610a74 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER VACATING JUNE 6, 2019 ORDER [ECF No. 11] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Patrick M. McMillain is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 5, 2019, Defendants removed this action from the Kern County Superior Court. On April 15, the undersigned screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a
More

ORDER VACATING JUNE 6, 2019 ORDER

[ECF No. 11]

Plaintiff Patrick M. McMillain is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 5, 2019, Defendants removed this action from the Kern County Superior Court.

On April 15, the undersigned screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Delgado, Romero, Brown, Jones, Negrete, Dunnahoe and Riley. (ECF No. 3.) However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable failure to protect claim. The Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the excessive force claim.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed only on the excessive force claim against Defendants Delgado, Romero, Brown, Jones, Negrete, Dunnahoe and Riley. (ECF No. 7.) As a result, on May 6, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action proceed only on the excessive force claim against Delgado, Romero, Brown, Jones, Negrete, Dunnahoe and Riley, and Plaintiff's failure to protect claim be dismissed. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were due within fourteen days. On June 3, 2019, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full and Defendants were directed to file a response to the complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.)

On June 6, 2019, the Court issued the standard order directing that the complaint be electronically served on Defendants. However, in as much as Defendants have appeared in this case based on the notice of removal and a response is presently due on or before July 3, 2019, the Court's June 6, 2019, is HEREBY VACATED, as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer