Benanti v. Matevousian

Filing 93

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint 68 , 82 , 85 , 87 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/27/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL BENANTI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MATEVOUSIAN,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01556-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
[ECF Nos. 68, 82, 85, 87]

Plaintiff Michael Benanti is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was

20

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

21

On December 17, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

22

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 85.) The

23

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were

24

due within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 88.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

On January 6, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

1
2

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint filed on December 2, 2019, be denied.

3

(ECF No. 87.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

4

that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 15, 2020.

5

(ECF No. 92.)

6

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

7

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

8

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

9

analysis.

10

In his objections, Plaintiff continues to argue, inter alia, that he was denied a copy of his

11

deposition, he is unable to depose certain witnesses, and he it was “unfair” to deny appointment of

12

counsel and appointment of an expert witness. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff’s arguments were properly

13

addressed by orders issued by the assigned Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 35, 63, 72, 76, 80, 91), and

14

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any basis for reconsideration.

15

Plaintiff’s indigency and in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to counsel, a free copy of the

16

deposition transcript, or waiver of the fees necessary to depose witnesses.

17

disagreement with any court order is not a valid basis for reconsideration. U.S. Westlands Water

18

Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d

19

242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 60(b)(6) may provide relief where parties were confronted with

20

extraordinary circumstances but it does not provide a second chance for parties who made deliberate

21

choices).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

As stated by the Magistrate Judge,

Plaintiff’s mere

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2019, and January 6,
2020 (ECF Nos. 85 and 87) are adopted in full;

3
4

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 82) is denied;

5

3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) is granted; and

6

4.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 27, 2020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3