Opinion
2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)
03-14-2023
SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, Plaintiff, v. M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 84, 94, 98)
Plaintiff Sheldon Ray Newsome is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. No. 84) be denied because plaintiff filed the motion more than a year after the deadline for the filing of motions established by the scheduling order in this case had passed and plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. No. 98 at 2-3.) Moreover, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff's proposed amendments would not be proper in any event because plaintiff now seeks to add a new defendant and bring claims against that new defendant based “on unrelated actions taken approximately four years after the events at issue in this case.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff's motion for clarification “in light of the novel allegations in his proposed third amended complaint” be denied as having been rendered moot by the court's denial of his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. (Id. at 3-4.)
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2022 (Doc. No. 98) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. No. 84) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's motion for clarification (Doc. No. 94) is denied as having been rendered moot by this order; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.