(PC) Harris v. Munoz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GRADY HARRIS, No. 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Grady Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 23, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 100.) 23 Both Plaintiff and Defendant Leavitt have filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations 24 (ECF Nos. 102, 103), which have been considered by the Court.1 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 26 27 1 When Plaintiff filed the instant Objections, he also filed a request asking the Court to permit him to seek additional discovery from Defendants. (See ECF No. 101; ECF No. 102 at 2– 28 5.) The magistrate judge assigned to this matter will address Plaintiff’s discovery-related request. 1 | Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 2 | Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 3 | also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the file under the 4 | applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by 5 || the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 6 Defendant argues the Court should dismiss the second amended complaint because it was 7 | filed nearly two months late. (ECF No. 103.) While Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was 8 || untimely filed, the delay was not egregious, and it did not cause any significant inconvenience to 9 | the Court or prejudice to Defendant. Further, public policy favors disposition of cases on their 10 || merits. These factors considered, dismissal is an inappropriate remedy for Plaintiff’s delayed 11 | filing. See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 || Defendant’s objections are therefore overruled. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 23, 2021 (ECF No. 100), are 15 | ADOPTED IN FULL, and 16 2. Defendant Leavitt’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 90) is DENIED as moot. 17 ITIS SO ORDERED. 18 | DATED: May 3, 2021 rc’ /) 19 “ \/ of 20 a A Troy L. Nunley» } 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28