1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARQUISE GRADY, No. 1:18-cv-00922-DAD-JDP

12 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF BE PERMITTED TO

PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND

14 C. GUTIERREZ, et al., THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15 Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS

16 17 Plaintiff Marquise Grady is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 18 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 3, 2019, I screened Grady’s complaint and found 19 that he stated due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, Voong, and Lee, but no 20 other claims. See ECF No. 10. That order gave Grady three options: (1) proceed only on the 21 claims found cognizable, (2) amend the complaint to add additional facts to make out additional 22 claims, or (3) stand on the current complaint subject to dismissal of claims and defendants. On 23 July 18, 2019, Grady filed a notice indicating his desire to proceed only on the claims deemed 24 cognizable. ECF No. 11. Accordingly, I recommend that his remaining claims be dismissed 25 without prejudice. 26 RECOMMENDATION 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 28 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 1 | v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). No defendant has appeared or consented to a 2 | magistrate judge’s jurisdiction in this case, so any dismissal of a claim requires an order from a 3 | district judge. /d. Thus, the undersigned submits the following findings and recommendations 4 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1): 5 1. Plaintiff states a cognizable due process claims against defendants Gutierrez, Jaime, 6 Voong, and Lee. 7 2. Plaintiff's remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice. 8 Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 9 | written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document 10 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 11 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 12 | onappeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 13 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ( Caan Dated: _ September 9, 2019 17 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 No. 205 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28