McCurdy v. Kernan et al
Filing
27
ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 26 Objections to March 21, 2018 Findings and Recommendations and DIRECTING Plaintiff to Complete and Return the Service of Process Forms within Thirty Days, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/15/18. (Case Management Deadline: 30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES C. McCURDY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
S. KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01356-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO MARCH 21, 2018 FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THE
SERVICE OF PROCESS FORMS WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
[ECF Nos. 17, 23, 26]
Plaintiff James C. McCurdy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations,
20
recommending that this action proceed against Defendant Bautista for excessive force in violation of
21
the Eighth Amendment and battery under California law. (ECF No. 17.) It was recommended that all
22
other claims and defendants be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.) The
23
Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to
24
be filed within thirty days. (Id.)
25
Plaintiff did not file objections within the thirty-day time frame. On April 23, 2018, the
26
Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 18.) On this same date, but after the
27
order adopting was placed on the docket, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file
28
objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 19.) On April 24, 2018, the Court
1
1
granted Plaintiff’s request and allowed him thirty days to file objections. (ECF No. 20.) On May 31,
2
2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 21.) On
3
June 4, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file objections. (ECF No. 22.)
4
Over thirty days passed and Plaintiff did not file objections. Accordingly, on July 19, 2018, the Court
5
determined that the action shall proceed action, and forwarded Plaintiff the service of process forms
6
form completion and return within thirty days. (ECF No. 23.)
On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed yet another request for an extension of time to file
7
8
objections. (ECF No. 24.) On August 10, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file
9
objections, and Plaintiff filed his objections on this same date. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) The Court has
10
reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and confirms the April 23, 2018 order adopting the Findings and
11
Recommendations in full. In his objections, Plaintiff merely sets forth his disagreement with the
12
Magistrate Judge’s March 21, 2018 Findings and Recommendations finding that this action shall
13
proceed only on Plaintiff’s excessive force and battery claims against Defendant Bautista. In
14
screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court carefully considered Plaintiff’s allegations, construed the
15
allegations in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and explained why the complaint failed to comply with
16
the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with a statement of the law applicable to any
17
potential claims. Plaintiff contends that he has stated cognizable claims for due process violation,
18
conditions of confinement, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, excessive force, and
19
failure to intervene. However, as stated in the Court’s August 23, 2017 order, Plaintiff has failed to set
20
forth sufficient factual basis to support his claims as applied to the relevant legal standard. Plaintiff’s
21
present objections contains a rambling recitation of facts he contends support cognizable constitutional
22
claims. However, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any valid objections and his mere disagreement with
23
the applicable law and analysis is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court’s April 23, 2018 order adopting
24
the Findings and Recommendations remains the law of this case.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
3
4
5
Plaintiff’s objection to the March 21, 2018 Findings and Recommendations is
overruled; and
2.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete and
return the service of process forms pursuant to the Court’s July 19, 2018 order.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 15, 2018
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?