Opinion
2:19-cv-0451 KJM KJN P
03-13-2023
ANTHONY L. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 9, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In the objections, plaintiff urges the court not to adopt the findings and recommendations because the proposed sixth amended complaint seeks to add defendants and allegations that were included in the third amended complaint. See Obj. at 3, ECF No. 146. These additional defendants and allegations were not, however, included in the fourth or fifth amended complaints, which were filed by plaintiff's court-appointed counsel. See Prior Order (Oct. 1, 2021), ECF No. 102; Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 105; Fifth Am. Compl, ECF No. 106. In addition to the reasons articulated in the findings and recommendations, the court denies plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. Counsel's assistance included decision-making “such as what arguments to pursue.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1508 (2018) (citation and mark omitted). If plaintiff disagreed with his former counsel's decision, he should have moved to amend his complaint at that time, rather than waiting six months until after discovery had closed. See Mot., ECF No. 136.
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 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 9, 2022, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion to file a sixth amended complaint (ECF No. 136) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.