(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)

Download PDF
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

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?