Opinion
No. 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS
02-20-2018
TONY ASBERRY, Plaintiff, v. C. RELEVANTE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
(Doc. Nos. 44, 46)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 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 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On August 9, 2017 and August 14, 2017, plaintiff filed separate motions seeking to amend his complaint and to "include previous lawsuits" in his complaint, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 44, 46.) On December 29, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motions be denied, and permitting plaintiff to file any objections thereto within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 85.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 11, 2018. (Doc. No. 88.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff's objections essentially restate his positions about why amendment should be allowed, but raise no new issues which would give the undersigned reason to doubt the magistrate judge's recommendations. Indeed, the magistrate judge recommended plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be denied without prejudice to him bringing another such motion, which plaintiff has since done. (See Doc. Nos. 89, 90.) The magistrate judge will review plaintiff's renewed motion to amend in due course and issue findings and recommendations addressing it. Further, to the extent that plaintiff indicates he wishes to obtain copies of documents already filed on the court's docket, he may contact the Clerk of the Court in order to inquire about obtaining such copies. In sum, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 85) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 44) is denied without prejudice to a subsequent motion to amend; and
3. Plaintiff's motion to include previous lawsuits (Doc. No. 46) is denied.
Dated: February 20 , 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE