Opinion
1:20-cv-00655-JLT-HBK (PC)
09-28-2023
CLIFFORD ALAN DILBERT, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, R. FISHER, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 26)
In this action, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint after the magistrate judge found that his first amended complaint failed to state a claim. (Doc. 25). Incorporated within the SAC was a motion requesting appointment of counsel and a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Id.) In response, the magistrate judge denied the motion for appointment of counsel and issued findings and recommendations recommending that the TRO be denied, and his SAC be dismissed for a failure to state a claim. (Doc. 26).
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge's order denying him appointment of counsel, which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration of that order. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that his two claims should be permitted to go forward and that the district court should grant a TRO preventing him from being transferred during the pendency of this action. (Id.)
First, the magistrate judge did not err in denying the request for appointment of counsel. As the magistrate judge explained (Doc. 26 at 2-3), this record does not demonstrate that this is the kind of “exceptional” case in which appointment would be appropriate. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds them to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Nothing in the objections materially calls into question the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge regarding the viability of the claims in the SAC or the TRO. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The construed request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's denial of Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2. The findings and recommendations, filed on July 28, 2023 (Doc. 26) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions, close this case, and enter judgment against plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.