ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the relevant records on file, and the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Amended Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the amended findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the SAC to state a claim for denial of adequate medical care, his request is DENIED. The Ninth Circuit has stated that in assessing the propriety of a motion to amend, it will consider five factors: "(1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the [party] has previously amended his [pleadings]." Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff commenced this action on June 4, 2017 and did not seek to include a denial of adequate medical care claim until June 13, 2019. First, the nearly two year delay in seeking to amend constitutes sufficient grounds to deny Plaintiff's request. Second, Plaintiff has presented no new facts, only a new theory for salvaging his constitutional claim. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend because the moving party presented "no new facts but only new theories and provide[d] no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"). Third, this Court has already given Plaintiff several opportunities to amend his claims. Finally, amendment would be futile, because the facts do not indicate Plaintiff was ever denied any medical care for the injuries alleged in the SAC.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice and without leave to amend.