(PC) Hearns v. Gonzales et al, No. 1:2014cv01177 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 50 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's 43 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMAR R. HEARNS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:14-cv-01177-DAD-MJS (PC) v. R. GONZALES, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT Defendants. (Doc. No. 50) 16 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 16, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 21 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s July 8, 2016 motion for leave to file a 22 supplemental complaint (Doc. No. 43), be denied. (Doc. No. 50.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen 23 days to file any objections to those findings and recommendations. Id. Despite seeking and 24 receiving an extension of time in which to do so, plaintiff has not submitted any objections, and 25 the time to do so has expired. (See Doc. No. 58.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 26 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 ///// 1 1 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on November 16, 2016 5 (Doc. No. 50) in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. No. 43) is 6 7 8 9 DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 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.