LEWIS v. ADAMS, 1:10-cv-00266-LJO-DLB PC. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120606748
Visitors: 29
Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. 54) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. Doc. 38. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 23, 2012, the Magistr
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. 54) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. Doc. 38. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 23, 2012, the Magistra..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. 54)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Homer Tyrone Lewis ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. Doc. 38. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within fourteen days. No party filed a timely Objection to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 23, 2012, is adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to amend, filed October 13, 2011, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
