Millner v. Woods et al

Filing 52

ORDER Adopting 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMES W. MILLNER,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01209-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLANT

DR. WOODS, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 40, 51)
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

15

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim for

16

deliberate indifference to a serious dental need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

17

Defendants Woods and Hashem. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) This matter was referred to a United States

18

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Dr.

20

Napoles as a defendant in this action. (ECF No. 40.) On February 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge

21

issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be denied.

22

(ECF No. 51.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

23

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the

24

findings and recommendations. Id. at 6. More than twenty-one days have passed since the

25

findings and recommendations were served and no objections have been filed.

26

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

27

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

28

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper
1

1
2
3
4

analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 8, 2019, (ECF No. 51), are
adopted in full;

5

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 40), is DENIED; and

6

3. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 19, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2