Opinion
1:18-cv-01420-AWI-BAM (PC)
12-17-2021
NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, Plaintiff, v. SHERMAN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR THIRTY-DAY
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AS
MOOT, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CASE
(DOC. NOS. 16 & 21)
Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels, III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.
On September 30, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the first-amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that recommended that this action be dismissed as barred by res judicata and frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Doc. No. 16. Following an extension of time, Plaintiff's objections were due on or before November 24, 2021. Doc. No. 18. The deadline to file objections passed, and Plaintiff failed to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations or otherwise communicate with the Court regarding this action. However, on December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file a second amended complaint. Doc. No. 21.
In his motion, Plaintiff explains that due to a variety of circumstances outside of his control, including the prison's lack of ADA equipment to accommodate his blindness, the restrictive law library schedule, and a quarantine of his housing unit during the month of November, he was unable to timely submit his second-amended complaint. Id However, Plaintiff was not granted leave to file a second-amended complaint, and the pending deadline permitted only the filing of objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. As such, the Court will deny Plaintiffs moot as moot. Plaintiffs filing does not otherwise address the substance of the findings and recommendations.
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 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion for thirty-day extension of time to file a second-amended complaint (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED as moot;
2. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) that were issued on September 30, 2021, are ADOPTED in full;
3. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, as barred by res judicata and frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.