(PC) Lugo v. Fisher, et al., No. 1:2019cv00039 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 82 Findings and Recommendations, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Amend, And Directing Clerk of Court to File Third Amended Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/19/2021. Minnehan, G. Lucas, J. Castillo, C. Duree, R. Perez, R. Vasquez and G. Vasquez added. Case is Referred back to Magistrate Judge.(Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 No.: 1:19-cv-00039-NONE-SAB (PC) KEITH ROBERT LUGO, 10 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE THRID AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 R. FISHER, et al., 13 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 76, 82) 14 Plaintiff Keith Robert Lugo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 15 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 12, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 18 19 recommending that plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint be granted in part and denied in 20 part. (Doc. No. 82.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 21 notice that objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 8.) More than fourteen days 22 have passed since the findings and recommendations were served, and no objections have been 23 filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 24 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 26 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 The findings and recommendations issued on March 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 82), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted with respect to adding defendants 5 Minnehan, G. Lucas, C. Duree, J. Castillo, R. Perez, R. Vasquez, and G. Vasquez 6 in their individual capacities for violation of plaintiff’s right under the First 7 Amendment to send and/or receive mail; 8 3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied with respect to adding claims against 9 defendants Minnehan, G. Lucas, C. Duree, J. Castillo, R. Perez, R. Vasquez, and 10 G. Vasquez in their official capacities; denied with respect to adding CDCR as a 11 defendant, and denied with respect to adding a claim for denial of access to the 12 courts; 13 4. 14 15 16 lodged on February 5, 2021 (Doc. No. 79); and 5. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the third amended complaint which was April 19, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.