Curtis v. Gonzales, 1:15-cv-00553-LJO-JDP (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180510831
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 09, 2018
Latest Update: May 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DENIED (ECF No. 63) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Reamel Curtis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 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 March 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosj
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DENIED (ECF No. 63) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Reamel Curtis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 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 March 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosje..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DENIED (ECF No. 63)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Reamel Curtis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 March 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 56) be denied. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff was given an opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on April 23, 2018. (ECF No. 65.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 27, 2018, (ECF No. 63), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 56), is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
