1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN SPEARS, No. 2:15-cv-0165 MCE AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM v. 14

EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

15 DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Brian Spears (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, which 21 challenges conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement at the El Dorado County Jail while a 22 pretrial detainee. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 23 to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 24 On January 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 25 regarding Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33), which were served on 26 Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 27 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service. Findings and 28 Recommendations, ECF No. 38. On January 10, 2021, the magistrate judge granted a 1 || 30-day extension of time for Plaintiff to file objections to the findings and 2 || recommendations, warning Plaintiff that further extensions would require a showing of 3 | exigent circumstances. ECF No. 41 (allowing Plaintiff until February 3, 2021). Plaintiff 4 | filed objections to the findings and recommendations on March 15, 2021. ECF No. 43.1 5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the January 4, 2021, 6 | findings and recommendations (ECF No. 38) to be supported by the record and by 7 || proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 4, 2021 (ECF No. 38), are 10 | ADOPTED IN FULL. 11 2. Plaintiff's Claims Three, Eight and Ten are DISMISSED without further leave to 12 | amend. 13 3. This case shall proceed on Plaintiff's remaining claims. 14 IT |S SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: June 15, 2021 Mater LEK hi r{lAx xe. " SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Thus, Plaintiff's Objections are untimely. However, as part of this Court’s inherent power, it retains the discretion to review such objections de novo. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825, 830-31 27 (E.D. Cal. 1979). In preference of resolving such matters on the merits, the Court elects to consider 28 Plaintiffs Objections in full. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1).