Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01894-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRVIN VAN BUREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. WADDLE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 24, 43)

Plaintiff is a 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.

On June 27, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

(Doc. No. 43) recommending denial of what the plaintiff captioned as a motion for leave to file a 

supplementary complaint, and what the magistrate judge construed as a motion for leave to file a 

second amended complaint (Doc. No. 24). This recommendation was premised on procedural 

defects in plaintiff’s filing, as construed, and included a specific recommendation that plaintiff be

afforded leave to amend his complaint in the proper manner within thirty days of any order 

adopting the findings and recommendations. (See Doc. No. 43.) The parties were both served 

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 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

with the findings and recommendations, and were granted fourteen days to file any objections

thereto. Id. No objections were filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis. 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on June 27, 2016 (Doc. No. 43) are adopted in 

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 24) is denied 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01894-DAD-MJS Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2