(PC) Millner v. Woods et al, No. 1:2016cv01209 - Document 52 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 51 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES W. MILLNER, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:16-cv-01209-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLANT DR. WOODS, et al., (ECF Nos. 40, 51) Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff James W. Millner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 15 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim for 16 deliberate indifference to a serious dental need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 17 Defendants Woods and Hashem. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) This matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Dr. 20 Napoles as a defendant in this action. (ECF No. 40.) On February 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge 21 issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be denied. 22 (ECF No. 51.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 23 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the 24 findings and recommendations. Id. at 6. More than twenty-one days have passed since the 25 findings and recommendations were served and no objections have been filed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 28 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 1 1 2 3 4 analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 8, 2019, (ECF No. 51), are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 40), is DENIED; and 6 3. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 19, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.