(PC) Bland v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLAND, No. 1:19-cv-00197-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 14 WARDEN KEN CLARK, et al., DISMISSING THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 16) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Joshua Davis Bland is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief 23 may be granted. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 24 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 25 service. (Id. at 8–9.) On December 11, 2019, plaintiff untimely filed objections to the findings 26 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 28 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, wOAOe 4:40 EY OMAR DAWN MYVIMO er □□ eve 1 | including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 2 | by the record and proper analysis. 3 Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed and considered □□□□□□□□□ □ 4 | untimely objections. Although plaintiff frames his filing as objections to the findings and 5 || recommendations, his filing instead appears to be an attempt to file a third amended complaint. 6 | (See Doc. No. 20.) In doing so, plaintiff has once again named new defendants and new claims 7 | despite the magistrate judge’s warnings against doing so. (See Doc. Nos. 14 at 7; 16 at 3.) In this 8 | regard, plaintiff cannot “change the nature of this suit by adding new claims in his objections.” 9 | Rackliffe v. Rocha, No. 1:07-cv-00603-AWI-DLB (PC), 2009 WL 800194, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10 |} 25, 2009) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (proscribing “buckshot” 11 complaints); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (allowing defendants to be joined in one action as 12 | defendants if any right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction, 13 || occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) (allowing multiple 14 | claims against opposing party but not multiple unrelated claims against different defendants)). As 15 | such, plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to question the analysis set forth in the 16 || pending findings and recommendation. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 4, 2019, (Doc. No. 16), are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim 21 upon which relief may be granted; and 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ April 16, 2020 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28