Opinion
2:20-cv-00051-DAD-DB (PC)
02-13-2023
JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, Plaintiff, v. JON MOSSINGER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STAY (DOC. NOS. 45, 49, 50)
Plaintiff Joshua Davis Bland 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 September 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motions to stay this action (Doc. Nos. 45, 49) be denied because “[p]laintiff has failed to show why a stay of these proceedings is necessary.” (Doc. No. 50 at 2.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty (20) days of service. (Id. at 3.) On September 30, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 53.) Defendants did not file a response thereto nor objections of their own.
Though not entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff had sought to stay proceedings in this civil action because he also had a federal habeas petition pending in this court, and he believed that the granting of federal habeas relief would impact this civil rights action. (Doc. No. 50 at 2.)
Plaintiff's objections consist of a single sentence in which plaintiff states that he “objects to the court's findings and recommendations to dismiss this action.” (Id. at 1) (emphasis added). However, the pending findings and recommendations recommend only the denial of plaintiff's motions to stay, not dismissal of this action. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. The undersigned also notes that the federal habeas petition that plaintiff had referred to in his motions to stay this civil rights action was dismissed by the court as frivolous on September 20, 2022. See Bland v. Warden, 2:21-cv-00518-TLN-DB, Doc. No. 19 (Sept. 20, 2022).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 19, 2022 (Doc. No. 50) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motions to stay (Doc. Nos. 45, 49) are denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.