Opinion
2:20-cv-01780-DAD-KJN (PC)
08-07-2023
SHAWN EDWARD COOKS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT HIS COMPLAINT PLEADINGS
(DOC. NOS. 31, 37)
Plaintiff Shawn Edward Cooks is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel 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 May 17, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion to amend and supplement his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 31) as to defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) be denied. (Doc. No. 37.) Specifically, in those findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff had failed to present any facts or legal authority establishing his entitlement to relief under Rule 15(d) in connection with his attempt to add new state law negligence claims against defendant Dr. Lameer and the previously dismissed defendant, CDCR. (Id. at 10-12.) In addition, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's proposed amendment was not appropriate under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because plaintiff's counsel had made no attempt to explain how the proposed amendment was compliant with the specific direction provided in this court's prior orders. (See Doc. Nos. 28 at 5; 30.)
The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 14.) No objections were filed by either party to those findings and recommendations and the time in which to do so has passed.
On June 16, 2023, plaintiff's counsel did file a renewed motion for leave to amend and supplement the complaint. (Doc. No. 38.) On June 29, 2023, counsel for defendant CDCR filed an objection to, and moved to strike, that renewed motion as premature in light of the fact that the undersigned had not yet adopted or declined to adopt the May 17, 2023 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 39.) That objection would appear to be well-taken. (See Doc. No. 37 at 14) (“Plaintiff shall notify the court, within thirty days from the date of any district court order adopting these findings and recommendations, whether or not he intends to renew the motion to amend and, if he does intend to renew the motion, shall also file the renewed motion to amend and proposed amended complaint.”) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, it is the assigned magistrate judge who will address those latest filings upon the issuance of this order.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 17, 2023 (Doc. No. 37) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion to amend and supplement his complaint (Doc. No. 31) is denied;
3. Plaintiff shall notify the court in writing, within 30 days of the date of entry of this order, whether he intends to renew his motion to amend; if he chooses to amend, the notice should be accompanied by the renewed motion to amend and proposed amended complaint; and
4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.