(PC) Reamel v. Harrington et al, No. 1:2015cv00553 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 63 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 56 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/09/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REAMEL CURTIS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. J. GONZALES and J. BURGARIN, 15 Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-00553-LJO-JDP (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DENIED (ECF No. 63) 16 17 Reamel Curtis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended 22 Complaint (ECF No. 56) be denied. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff was given an opportunity to 23 object to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on April 23, 2018. 24 (ECF No. 65.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 27 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 28 analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on March 27, 2018, (ECF No. 63), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. 5 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 56), is denied. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 9, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.