(PC) Martinez v. Peterson

Filing 73

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/07/2024 ADOPTING 68 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 55 & 67 Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to file an Amended Complaint and DENYING 51 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to its refiling after the close of discovery. This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Nair, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRED FELEKI MARTINEZ,

12
13
14

No. 2:21-cv-01779-DAD-JDP (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
PETERSON,

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 51, 55, 67, 68)

17
18

Plaintiff Fred Feleki Martinez is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

20

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

21

On March 11, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that plaintiff’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 55, 67)

23

be denied and that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 51) be “denied without

24

prejudice to refiling at the amended close of discovery.” (Doc. No. 68 at 3.) The pending

25

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

26

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) To date, no

27

objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so

28

has passed.
1

1

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

2

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

3

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly:

5

1.

6

adopted in full;

7

2.

8

Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 55, 67) are
denied; and

9

3.

10

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 51) is denied without
prejudice to its refiling after the close of discovery; and

11

4.

12

This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.

13
14

The findings and recommendations issued on March 11, 2024 (Doc. No. 68) are

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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