Opinion
1:19-cv-00369-ADA-CDB (PC)
10-21-2022
ANGELO CORREA, Plaintiff, v. BRAUDRICK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S OCTOBER 17, 2022 FILINGS
(ECF NOS. 99, 100)
Plaintiff Angelo Correa (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 27, 2022, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.) Plaintiff was afforded fourteen (14) days to file any objections. (Id. at 21.) On July 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file his objections. (ECF Nos. 83, 84.) On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections. (ECF No. 85.) On October 12, 2022, the undersigned issued the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 98.)
On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a twenty-eight-page document entitled “Plaintiff's ‘Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations',” and a one-page document entitled “Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Requesting the Courts Permission to File Another ‘Objections With a Better and Stronger Argument to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations'.” (ECF Nos. 99, 100).
The Court denies Plaintiff's filings because they are moot. Plaintiff attempts to submit additional objections to the findings and recommendations issued on June 27, 2022. (See ECF No. 82.) However, Plaintiff had already filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 85.) The findings and recommendations are now final because the undersigned had considered Plaintiff's previously filed objections and adopted in full the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 98.) Therefore, this action proceeds solely on Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants Braudrick and Maddux. (Id. at 2.) The claim against Defendant Torres did not survive summary judgment and is no longer at issue. (Id.) The Court construes the second filing as a motion for leave to file additional objections because it was filed simultaneously with the additional objections. For the same reasons as the first filing, the filing is denied as moot.
Accordingly,
1. Plaintiff's October 17, 2022 filings, (ECF Nos. 99, 100), are DENIED as moot;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Salinas-Torrespursuant to the undersigned's October 12, 2022 Order, (ECF No. 98).
The Court found that Defendant Salinas and subsequent references to “Defendant Torres” involve the same individual. (ECF No. 82, at 3 n. 2.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.