Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 40) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magist
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 40) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistr..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 37, 38, 40)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 8, 2018, Defendant Timothy Preston filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 37.) On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff requested leave to file the proposed first amended complaint that he had included as Attachment 1 to his opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. (ECF no. 38, at 1, 22, 24-32.)1
On March 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint be granted and that Defendant's motion to dismiss be denied as moot. (ECF No. 40.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 8.) More than fourteen days have passed since the findings and recommendations were served and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2019, (ECF No. 40), are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's request for leave to file a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED;
3. Defendant's motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 37), is DENIED as MOOT;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff's first amended complaint, which consists of pages 25 through 32 of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 38);
5. The Court will screen Plaintiff's first amended complaint as quickly as possible given the Court's heavy caseload;
6. The Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies if a hearing is necessary after Plaintiff's first amended complaint is screened; and
7. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
