Opinion
1:19-cv-01024-ADA-HBK (PC)
07-17-2023
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. S. SAVOIE, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE (ECF NOS. 36, 41)
Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action as a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 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 2, 2022, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's initial complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 32.) On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 34.)
On April 14, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations (“F&R”) finding that Plaintiff's FAC fails to state any claim and that one of Plaintiff's claims is barred as duplicative. (ECF No. 36 at 5-6, 11.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that further leave to amend was not warranted, that Plaintiff's FAC be dismissed, and that the case be closed because Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies in his FAC despite being provided the relevant pleading and legal standards. (Id. at 12.) The F&R was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Id.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed various motions, including a Motion to Amend the FAC. (See ECF Nos. 37-39.) On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed “Objections” that reference the Magistrate Judge's April 14, 2023 F&R recommending dismissal of his case. (See ECF No. 42.) The Court construes Plaintiff's May 10, 2023 filing as objections to that F&R only. (See id.)
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 issued on April 14, 2023, to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff's objections do not meaningfully address the Magistrate Judge's findings, and instead largely repeat the allegations in his FAC and seeks to allege new facts not contained in his prior complaints. (See generally ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff also attaches 139 pages of exhibits to his objections, including a proposed amended complaint. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to object to the F&R denying his Motion to Amend, he must do so by separate filing.
On May 1, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a F&R recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend be denied because Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his proposed second amended complaint or provide any explanation as to how his proposed amended complaint would cure the deficiencies of either his original complaint or FAC. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff had fourteen days to file objections upon service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. Again, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff's claims are barred as duplicative and that Plaintiff's FAC fails to state a claim. (See ECF No. 36 at 5-6, 11.) Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations issued on May 1, 2023, to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations, filed on April 14, 2023, (ECF No. 36), are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed;
3. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 1, 2023, (ECF No. 41), are adopted in full; and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.