(PC) Hoskins v. Ngyen, No. 1:2017cv01133 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/5/19. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY HOSKINS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 1: 17-cv-01133-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 25) L. NGYEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Anthony Hoskins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought 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 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 22 No. 22) be denied. (Doc. No. 25.) Therein, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s motion 23 failed to satisfy either the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 or the more lenient 24 Rule 15 standard for seeking leave to amend. (Id. at 2–6.) The findings and recommendations 25 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 26 fourteen days after service. (Id. at 7.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time 27 to do so has since passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly: 5 1. 6 The findings and recommendations issued on March 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 25) are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Doc. No. 22) is denied; and 8 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 9 proceedings consistent with this order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: June 5, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.