Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392-20/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

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

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. NIX, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 93)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On February 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and

recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a supplemental complaint. 

(ECF No. 93.) On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed purported objections, in which he 

requested permission to withdraw his proposed complaint “without prejudice.” (ECF No. 

95.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. The purported objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under the 

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff provides no basis for denial of the motions 

without prejudice. Moreover, the deadline to amend pleadings has passed and the 

matter is ready to be set for trial.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed February 2, 

2016 (ECF No. 93), in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF Nos. 73 

and 74) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 97 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2