(PC) Gray v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00196-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTON TO AMEND AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 14 KEN CLARK, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docs. 73, 75, 84) 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s 18 motion to amend the complaint and his motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 84.) The Court served 19 the Findings and Recommendations on the plaintiff. It contained notice that any objections were 20 to be filed within 14 days after service. (Id. at 6.) The Court advised Gray that “failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 22 magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. (quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 23 (9th Cir. 2014)).) Gray filed objections on October 14, 2022. (Doc. 87.) Gray also filed 24 “objections” to Defendants’ opposition to Gray’s motions to amend the complaint and to compel 25 discovery, after the magistrate judge had already issued the Findings and Recommendations. 26 (Doc. 86.) 27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the 1 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Gray’s two sets of objections (Docs. 2 | 86 and 87), the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations are 3 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. For the sake of clarity, the Court briefly 4 | addresses Gray’s objection regarding his motion for discovery. Although Gray argues this 5 | motion was unopposed, Defendants did in fact oppose the request that is subject to the Findings 6 | and Recommendations. Gray has filed two recent motions related to discovery. First, Gray 7 | requested permission to submit his “discovery packet,” which he wishes to present at trial, 8 | including a CDCR 115 Rule Violation Report, Medical Report, and Ad-Seg Placement Report. 9 | (Doc. 62.) Defendants did not oppose this request. (Doc. 65.) This motion was not considered in 10 | the Findings and Recommendations. Second, Gray moved to compel discovery, seeking new 11 | evidence not previously requested or produced during discovery, including all prior grievances 12 | and complaints filed by other inmates against the Defendants throughout their employment. 13 | (Doc. 75.) Defendants opposed this request (Doc. 82 at 5-8), and the magistrate judge 14 | recommended denying Gray’s motion to compel. Having considered all objections by Gray, the 15 | Court adopts the conclusions in the Findings and Recommendations with respect to the motion to 16 | compel and the motion to amend the complaint. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 5, 2022 (Doc. 84) are 18 ADOPTED IN FULL. 19 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and motion to compel discovery (Docs. 20 73, 75) are DENIED. 21 3. Plaintiff's request to submit a discovery packet (Doc. 62) is GRANTED, as 22 unopposed. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 4, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28