Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00033-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lou Blanas
Defendant
Larry W. Kirk
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

LARRY W. KIRK, No. 2:06-cv-0033-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

LOU BLANAS,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern

District of California local rules.

On October 19, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within ten (10) days. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00033-MCE -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/20/06 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

 Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File 1

Objections is denied as unnecessary. 

2

Plaintiff has timely 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.

As to Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend the Complaint

and for Appointment of Counsel, both filed on November 9, 2006,

Plaintiff states that he should be granted leave to amend prior

to dismissal of the entire action. However, as outlined in the

Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave

to amend because the deficiencies in his complaint cannot be

cured. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions are denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 19,

2006, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend and for

Appointment of Counsel are denied;

3. This action is dismissed; and

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00033-MCE -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/20/06 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

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment 

and close this file.

DATED: November 20, 2006

_________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00033-MCE -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3