Harris v. Macomber et al

Filing 105

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/3/21 ADOPTING in full 100 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING as moot 90 Defendant Leavitt's Motion to Dismiss. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GRADY HARRIS,

12

No. 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-DB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Grady Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil

17
18

rights action seeking relief under 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.

20

On March 23, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein

21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 100.)

23

Both Plaintiff and Defendant Leavitt have filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations

24

(ECF Nos. 102, 103), which have been considered by the Court.1

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this

26
27
28

1

When Plaintiff filed the instant Objections, he also filed a request asking the Court to
permit him to seek additional discovery from Defendants. (See ECF No. 101; ECF No. 102 at 2–
5.) The magistrate judge assigned to this matter will address Plaintiff’s discovery-related request.
1

1

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

2

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see

3

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the file under the

4

applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by

5

the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

6

Defendant argues the Court should dismiss the second amended complaint because it was

7

filed nearly two months late. (ECF No. 103.) While Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was

8

untimely filed, the delay was not egregious, and it did not cause any significant inconvenience to

9

the Court or prejudice to Defendant. Further, public policy favors disposition of cases on their

10

merits. These factors considered, dismissal is an inappropriate remedy for Plaintiff’s delayed

11

filing. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

12

Defendant’s objections are therefore overruled.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 23, 2021 (ECF No. 100), are

15

ADOPTED IN FULL, and

16

2. Defendant Leavitt’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 90) is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: May 3, 2021

19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2