Opinion
1:20-cv-00484-NE-EPG
06-25-2021
RICK HAMILTON and KRISTIN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BE DENIED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(DOC. NOS. 11, 17 & 25)
Plaintiffs Rick Hamilton and Kristin Hamilton commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 3, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 1-2.) This action is currently proceeding on plaintiff's first amended complaint against defendants County of Madera, County of Madera Board of Supervisors, and various individuals in connection with a long-running dispute between the Hamiltons and Madera County. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint on February 18, 2021. (Doc. No. 17). Both motions were referred to the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc Nos. 16 & 18).
On April 22, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted; that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend be denied; and that plaintiffs be granted further leave to amend, with certain limitations. (Doc. No. 25).
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 13-14.) No. objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. The undersigned agrees that plaintiffs' first amended complaint and proposed second amended complaint are prolix and violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The undersigned also agrees that leave to amend should be granted subject to the restrictions recommended by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2021, (Doc. No. 25), are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, with leave to amend;
3. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; and
4. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order should they elect to pursue this action. Such third amended complaint, including its exhibits, must be no longer than 35 pages in length, and all claims for relief asserted therein must include specific allegations or otherwise clearly describe what actions by which defendants allegedly violated plaintiffs' rights.
IT IS SO ORDERED.