United States District Court, E.D. California
ANTHONY R. TURNER, Plaintiff,
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING THIS ACTION (DOC. NO. 36)
Anthony R. Turner is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights
case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
August 16, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened
plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
and determined that it failed to state a claim against any of
the individual defendants, and that it also violated Rules
18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because
the complaint did not clearly identify whether potential
defendants are properly joined or whether any potential
claims are connected to each other. (Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff
was given leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days
of the service of the screening order to cure the
deficiencies identified therein. (Id.) Plaintiff was
also warned that his failure to comply with the court's
screening order would result in a recommendation that this
case be dismissed. (Id. at 6.) On September 16,
2019, plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint. (Doc.
September 29, 2019, the magistrate judge screened
plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and determined that it again failed to state a
claim against any of the individual defendants and violated
Rules 18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Doc. No. 36.) Accordingly, on September 29, 2019, the
magistrate judge issued the pending findings and
recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed
due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's
prior screening order. (Id.) It was also recommended
that this action be dismissed with prejudice because the
screening order provided plaintiff with ample guidance to
cure the deficiencies in his original complaint, yet his
first amended complaint failed to comply with that order.
(Id. at 6.) The findings and recommendations were
served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections
thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after
service. (Id. at 7).
October 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a document titled:
“Notice of Objections to Non-Consented Magistrate's
Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss, and Notice of Motion
for ‘Recusal' and ‘Change' of
‘Venue,' based on ‘Prejudice,'
‘Race gender discrimination,' ‘Abuse of
Discretion,' and Contempt by Obstruction of Court
Access.” (Doc. No. 37.) In his filing, plaintiff does
not address the substance of the pending findings and
recommendations or object in any coherent sense to them.
(Id.) Rather, plaintiff objects to the assigned
magistrate judge having issued findings and recommendations
at all on the grounds that he did not consent to the
magistrate judge,  and the screening process was defective
and discriminatory and did not constitute a “judicial
fact finding.” (Id. at 3, ¶¶ 7-8.)
Plaintiff has not addressed the deficiencies in his first
amended complaint or indicated that he will comply with the
federal rules and the court's prior screening order if
given leave to amend his complaint again. The court concludes
that plaintiffs objections provide no basis upon which to
reject the pending findings and recommendations.
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo
review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
file, including plaintiffs objections to the findings and
recommendations, the court finds the findings and
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 26,
2019 (Doc. No. 36) are adopted in full;
action is dismissed with prejudice; and
Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
 This objection is misguided since no
consent of the parties is needed for a motion to be referred
to a magistrate judge for issuance of findings and
recommendations to the assigned district judge. For what it
is worth, plaintiff in this case actually did consent
magistrate judge jurisdiction twice, on December 28, 2018 and
January 14, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 14, 17.) After the assigned
magistrate judge issued rulings that plaintiff disagreed
with, he filed a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction
on July 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 28) and a request for recusal of
the assigned magistrate judge on September 9, 2019 (Doc. No.
31). The court denied plaintiff's request for recusal,
concluding he had “not supported his motion with any
evidence that the Magistrate Judge has a personal bias