(PC) Williams v. Aceves, No. 2:2021cv00921 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/17/2023 ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 39 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Perdue, C.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:21-cv-00921-DAD-KJN (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ACEVES, Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 39, 43) Plaintiff Robert Curtis Williams, III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 39) be 22 denied because: plaintiff filed the motion several months after the filing deadline set forth in the 23 scheduling order had passed, plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause to modify that scheduling 24 order, defendant would be prejudiced if plaintiff were granted leave to amend his complaint to 25 add a new (and unrelated) claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and 26 plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any putative ADA claim is properly joined with plaintiff’s 27 First and Eighth Amendment allegations against defendant Aceves in this case. (Doc. No. 43 at 28 3–6.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 1 1 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 2 7.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 5 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 adopted in full; 9 2. 10 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 39) is denied; and 11 3. 12 This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 14 The findings and recommendations issued on January 5, 2023 (Doc. No. 43) are IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
