(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BARRETT, No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 14 A. CIOLLI, THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND BE DENIED 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26, 28) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Curtis Barrett is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics 20 Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On September 29, 2021, plaintiff filed two separate motions requesting the court’s leave 23 to amend his complaint. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26.) On October 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge 24 entered findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend 25 be denied. (Doc. No. 28.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 26 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of 27 service. (Id. at 5.) On October 15, 2021, plaintiff filed a document entitled “objections to the 28 ///// 1 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.” (Doc. No. 32.)! 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 3 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 4 | objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 5 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff's objections do not undermine the 6 | magistrate judge’s reasoning regarding the futility of further amendment and the impropriety of 7 | adding unrelated claims to this case. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations entered on October 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 28) are 10 adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. Nos. 25, 26) are denied. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ - 13 [1 @ 6 Dated: _ November 21, 2021 fee | ae 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Tt appears that at least some points made in these objections pertain to the October 4, 2021 findings and recommendations regarding plaintiff's motions to amend, while other points may 27 | relate to separate findings and recommendations issued September 22, 2021. The September 22, 2021 findings and recommendations will be addressed in a separate order and any relevant 28 | objections will be addressed therein.