(PC) Hisle v. Conanan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS C. HISLE, No. 1:21-cv-01680-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 14 MARLYN CONANAN, Docs. 37, 46, 49 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff initiated this action on November 22, 2021. Doc. 1. After screening, plaintiff 21 indicated he wished to stand on his complaint as screened and to proceed only on his deliberate 22 indifference claim against defendant Conanan. Doc. 7. The Court subsequently dismissed the 23 other defendant, Dr. Ahmed, from the action. Doc. 10. The Court denied defendant’s motion to 24 dismiss on February 21, 2023. Doc. 28. On March 3, 2023, defendant Conanan filed her answer. 25 Doc. 29. 26 On July 5, 2023, plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint adding a 27 new defendant, N. Voss. Doc. 37 (“Motion to Amend”). After the filing of defendant’s 28 opposition and plaintiff’s reply, the assigned magistrate judge instructed defendant Conanan to 1 file a sur-reply addressing whether plaintiff’s claims against Voss were time-barred. Docs. 41 2 (“Opp’n”), 42 (“Response”), 43 (“Sur-Reply”). Defendant filed a sur-reply, to which plaintiff 3 objected. Docs. 44, 45. 4 On October 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 5 recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. Doc. 46. The findings and 6 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 7 filed within fourteen (14) days of service. Id. at 11. Plaintiff did not file objections within the 8 required time frame. See docket. On May 29, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion again objecting to the 9 magistrate judge’s October 2, 2023 order directing defendant to file a sur-reply. Doc. 49. 10 Plaintiff requests that the Court disregard the sur-reply, claiming it was improper and prejudicial. 11 Doc. 49. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 13 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that 14 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As to 15 plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s sur-reply was improper, Doc. 49, the magistrate judge’s request 16 for this supplementary brief was within the Court’s sound discretion. S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 17 677 F.2d 1301, 1314 (9th Cir. 1982). 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 17, 2023, Doc. 46, are 3 ADOPTED in FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, filed on July 5, 2023, Doc. 37, is 5 DENIED; 6 3. Plaintiff's motion objecting to defendant’s sur-reply, Doc. 49, is DENIED; and 7 4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ February 13, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28