(PC) James v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:22-cv-02193-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (Doc. Nos. 48, 54, 61) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ronald Eugene James is a county inmate 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 March 12, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that plaintiff’s motions to supplement the sixth amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 48, 22 51) be denied without prejudice because plaintiff did not follow the proper procedure for 23 amending a complaint under Local Rule 220. (Doc. No. 61 at 2.) Specifically, plaintiff did not 24 file a proposed seventh amended complaint that was complete in itself. (Id.) (citing Goodbar v. 25 Paldara, No. 1:21-cv-01811-GSA-PC, 2022 WL 1462142, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2022) 26 (“Under Rule 220, Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint by adding new information submitted 27 separately from the Complaint. To add information or make a correction to the Complaint, 28 Plaintiff must file an amended complaint which is complete in itself, without reference to prior 1 | complaints. To add his new allegations, Plaintiff must file a First Amended Complaint, complete 2 | itself, incorporating the new allegations.”)). 3 Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 4 | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (/d. at 5 | 5.) On March 29, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 6 | (Doc. No. 62.) However, plaintiff's objections do not address the shortcomings of his filings as 7 | described in the findings and recommendations. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 9 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 10 | court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 11 analysis. 12 Accordingly: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 61) are 14 adopted in full; and 15 2. Plaintiffs requests to supplement the sixth amended complaint (Doc Nos. 48, 54) 16 are denied without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 5, 2024 Da A. 2, ye 19 DALE A. DROZD 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28