Pfeiffer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DARRYL W. HUDSON, No. 1:22-cv-01313-JLT-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

v. (Docs. 1, 13) C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Defendants.

16 The assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations that “[t]his action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim,” and that “[t]he Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.” (Doc. 13 at 9.) Plaintiff filed objections on March 6, 2023. (Doc. 14.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. In his objections, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) Though leave to is generally given liberally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a court may decline to do so if amendment would be futile. See Cahill…