Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 59 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/5/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GORDON C. REID,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1: 14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 64)

15
16

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

17

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388

18

(1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the

20

Eastern District of California.

21

On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of final judgement which

22

seeks partial judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the claims

23

and defendants dismissed in the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 59.) On November

24

21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s

25

motion. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 69.) Defendant filed no

26

response and the time for doing so has passed.

27

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has

28

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

1

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

2

proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the

3

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to challenge

4

the screening order, which resulted in a delay in serving Defendant Ontiveroz. Plaintiff

5

has already filed two motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 16, 38) and an interlocutory

6

appeal of the Court’s screening orders. (ECF Nos. 25, 42). Plaintiff’s objections raise no

7

reason for further delay. Plaintiff may appeal the Court’s dismissal of the claims and

8

defendants at the conclusion of this matter, if he so chooses.

9
10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

11
12

The Court adopts the November 21, 2017, findings and recommendations
(ECF No. 64) in full;

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of final judgement (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 5, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2