Opinion
1:19-cv-01343-DAD-HBK (PC)
08-30-2021
YAKINI DEANDRE BYRD, Plaintiff, v. F. SERRANO, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. Nos. 52, 54)
Plaintiff Yakini Deandre Byrd is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 52) be denied. (Doc. No. 54.) Therein, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to first show good cause to modify the discovery and scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and pursuant to that scheduling order, the deadline to amend the pleadings was March 4, 2021-several months before plaintiff filed the pending motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint on July 1, 2021. (Id. at 1-2.) In addition, because plaintiff seeks only to add as a named defendant the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)-a state agency that is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from liability in § 1983 actions unless explicitly waived-the magistrate judge also found that granting plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint would be futile. (Id. at 2-3.) Those 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 3.) To date, no objections to the pending 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 this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 5, 2021 (Doc. No. 54) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff s motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 52) is denied; and
3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.