Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al
Filing
113
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/2/19 ADOPTING 106 Findings and Recommendations in full; and DENYING 101 Motion to Amend the Complaint.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-EFB
v.
ORDER
UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Vilaychith Khouanmany (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
17
18
brings this civil action with claims premised under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
19
U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 17, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
21
22
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
23
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 106.) On
24
November 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No.
25
109.)
26
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
27
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
28
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
1
1
to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court
2
assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United
3
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
4
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
5
Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court
6
finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate
7
judge’s analysis.
8
9
Plaintiff’s Objections, like her Motion to Amend, fail to offer new, cognizable theories of
liability or meaningfully clarify her original allegations. Further, as the Findings and
10
Recommendations properly note, the procedural posture of this action — namely, that this action
11
was filed more than two years ago (see ECF No. 1) and is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second
12
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72) — demonstrates that Plaintiff has been accorded both
13
sufficient time and opportunity to identify her claims and defendants. The Court agrees that
14
permitting further amendment would be futile and would result in undue delay and undue
15
prejudice to the opposing party. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 17, 2019 (ECF No. 106), are
18
adopted in full; and
19
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 101) is DENIED.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: December 2, 2019
22
23
24
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?