Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01077-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MCDANIEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF NO. 43)

Robert McDaniel ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed the Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 39).

On September 8, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A. (ECF No. 40). The Court recommended that the case proceed 

against defendants Davis, Chavez, and Loyd for violation of due process, and that all other 

claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id.). Plaintiff was given thirty days from the date of 

service of the findings and recommendations to file an objection. (Id.). No objection was filed

within the thirty days, and District Judge Lawrence J. O’Niell adopted the Court’s findings and 

recommendations in full. (ECF No. 41). Then, on October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed this 

objection. (ECF No. 43).

The objection period has expired, and the findings and recommendations have already 

been adopted. Accordingly, the objection is moot. Additionally, even had Plaintiff timely filed

his objection, it would not have changed the Court’s ruling. Plaintiff has not put forward any 

coherent arguments as to why the findings and recommendations were wrong. Plaintiff does 

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 44 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ask for additional time and clarification on an issue, presumably so that he can file another 

amended complaint. However, this case is already on its fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff 

has had multiple opportunities to amend his complaint and his objections advance no 

arguments or facts that suggest further amendment would be anything other than futile. 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection. The October 31, 2016 

Order finding service of the Fourth Amended Complaint appropriate (ECF No. 42) remains in 

effect. Plaintiff must complete and return the documents attached to that Order by the deadline 

set forth in that Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG Document 44 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2