Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-31/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE VADEN, JR.

Plaintiff,

v.

DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief 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 Rule 302.

On February 21, 2023, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

1

 The magistrate judge recommends a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 

be denied as Plaintiff failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s September 26, 2022 order 

concerning the contents of the motion to amend, which in turn led the magistrate judge to find 

that plaintiff has not established justice requires leave to amend as Plaintiff must under Rule 15(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his objections, Plaintiff does not argue that he did in 

fact meet the magistrate judge’s requirements nor does he otherwise establish justice requires 

leave to amend in the manner suggested in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 162 Filed 05/19/23 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

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on February 21, 2023, are ADOPTED IN 

FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 134) is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s November 3, 2022, second amended complaint (ECF No. 151) is stricken.

DATE: May 18, 2023

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 162 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 2