Hoffman v. Coyle et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, and DENYING as Moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 37 , 38 , 40 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/9/2019: This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

TIMOTHY PRESTON,

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01617-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.
(ECF Nos. 37, 38, 40)

16
17

Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

19

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

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

21

On November 8, 2018, Defendant Timothy Preston filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No.

22

37.) On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff requested leave to file the proposed first amended complaint

23

that he had included as Attachment 1 to his opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF no.

24

38, at 1, 22, 24-32.)1

25

On March 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

26

recommending that Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint be granted and that

27
1

28

All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the
CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

1

1

Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot.

2

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were

3

to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 8.)

4

More than fourteen days have passed since the findings and recommendations were served and no

5

objections have been filed.

(ECF No. 40.)

The findings and

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

analysis.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12

The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2019, (ECF No. 40), are
adopted in full;

13

2.

14

Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 38), is
GRANTED;

15

3.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 37), is DENIED as MOOT;

16

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which

17

consists of pages 25 through 32 of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to

18

dismiss, (ECF No. 38);

19

5.

The Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as quickly as possible
given the Court’s heavy caseload;

20
21

6.

The Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of

22

administrative remedies if a hearing is necessary after Plaintiff’s first amended

23

complaint is screened; and

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

///
2

1

7.

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

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 9, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3