Asberry v. Biter
Filing
99
ORDER Adopting 85 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 44 46 Motions signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TONY ASBERRY,
12
13
14
No. 1:16-cv-01741-DAD-MJS
Plaintiff,
v.
C. RELEVANTE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
(Doc. Nos. 44, 46)
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
20
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
21
On August 9, 2017 and August 14, 2017, plaintiff filed separate motions seeking to amend
22
his complaint and to “include previous lawsuits” in his complaint, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 44,
23
46.) On December 29, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
24
recommending that plaintiff’s motions be denied, and permitting plaintiff to file any objections
25
thereto within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 85.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 11, 2018.
26
(Doc. No. 88.)
27
28
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff’s objections essentially restate his positions
1
1
about why amendment should be allowed, but raise no new issues which would give the
2
undersigned reason to doubt the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Indeed, the magistrate
3
judge recommended plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be denied without prejudice to him
4
bringing another such motion, which plaintiff has since done. (See Doc. Nos. 89, 90.) The
5
magistrate judge will review plaintiff’s renewed motion to amend in due course and issue
6
findings and recommendations addressing it. Further, to the extent that plaintiff indicates he
7
wishes to obtain copies of documents already filed on the court’s docket, he may contact the
8
Clerk of the Court in order to inquire about obtaining such copies. In sum, the undersigned
9
concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
10
11
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 85) are adopted
12
13
in full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 44) is denied without prejudice to a
14
15
16
17
subsequent motion to amend; and
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to include previous lawsuits (Doc. No. 46) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 20, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?