Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01653/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01653-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY A. BUSH, No. CIV-S-01-1653 MCE/KJM P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

C/O GRAY, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an

action for violation of civil rights under 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 26, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-01653-MCE -KJM Document 59 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

 In his objections, plaintiff seeks “leave to amend his 1

complaint to include the suggestions he mentioned in [his]

opposition [to defendant’s motion for summary judgment]” if the

court deems amendment “necessary.” Objections at 8:9-13. Given

the vague nature of plaintiff’s request, and the length of time

plaintiff’s original complaint has been pending before the court,

the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by granting plaintiff leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a).

2

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-01653-MCE -KJM Document 59 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s December 2, 2004 motion for summary judgment

is granted as to plaintiff’s denial of access to court’s claim

and denied as to plaintiff’s claims arising under state law;

3. Plaintiff’s January 18, 2005 cross-motion for summary

judgment is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without

prejudice to refiling in state court; and

5. This case is closed.

DATED: September 30, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01653-MCE -KJM Document 59 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3