Opinion
2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD
05-18-2023
ERNEST LEE VADEN, JR. Plaintiff, v. DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 February 21, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The magistrate judge recommends a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be denied as Plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge's September 26, 2022 order concerning the contents of the motion to amend, which in turn led the magistrate judge to find that plaintiff has not established justice requires leave to amend as Plaintiff must under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his objections, Plaintiff does not argue that he did in fact meet the magistrate judge's requirements nor does he otherwise establish justice requires leave to amend in the manner suggested in Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 21, 2023, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 134) is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff's November 3, 2022, second amended complaint (ECF No. 151) is stricken.