(PC) McClellan v. Kern County Sheriff's Office et al, No. 1:2010cv00386 - Document 117 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To Deny Plaintiff's Motion To Amend The Pleadings (ECF No. 88 & 100 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/13/2015. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Case No. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS (ECF No. 100) Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Lozano, Wood, and Perkins, all of whom have appeared in the 22 action. (ECF Nos. 23, 71, & 73.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 23 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On July 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 25 (ECF No. 100) to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings to include a medical 26 indifference claim. (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff filed objections on July 29, 2015. (ECF No. 27 28 108.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 2 the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the Court finds that the July 14, 2015 findings and recommendations are 4 5 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 7 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 100), filed July 14, 2015, in full; and 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings (ECF No. 88), filed June 8, 2015, is 10 DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 13, 2015 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.