Oliver v. Shelton et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/21/2021 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 5/7/2020, in full; GRANTING Defendants' unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43 ); DISMISSING Plaintiff's request s for permanent injunctive relief without leave to amend; DISMISSING Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 36 ) with LEAVE TO AMEND as to his ADA claims; Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order; and this matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARON MICHAEL OLIVER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-CV-1809-KJM-DMC

v.

ORDER

DUANE SHELTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was

17
18

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local

19

rules.

20

On May 7, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within

22

the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

23

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

25

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

26

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

27

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

28

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The findings and recommendations filed May 7, 2020, are adopted in full;

3

2.

Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43) is granted;

4

3.

Plaintiff’s requests for permanent injunctive relief are dismissed without

5
6
7
8
9
10

leave to amend;
4.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 36) is dismissed with

leave to amend as to his ADA claims;
5.

Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the

date of this order; and
6.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further

11

pretrial proceedings.

12

DATED: January 21, 2021.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2