govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02193-14

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
RONALD EUGENE JAMES, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SAUCEDO, et al., 
Defendants. 
 
No. 2:22-cv-2193-DAD-JDP (P) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION OF DISCOVERY 
RELATED ORDERS 
(Doc. Nos. 133, 135, 138) 
 
Plaintiff Ronald Eugene James is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 
 On March 9, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order denying several 
discovery related motions brought by plaintiff and modifying the scheduling order in this case 
with respect to the discovery cutoff date. (Doc. No. 132.) Plaintiff filed a motion for 
reconsideration of that order. (Doc. No. 133.) On April 24, 2026, the magistrate judge issued 
findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the 
discovery order be denied. (Doc. No. 135.) 
///// 

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 
2.) On May 18, 2026, the court received plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. No. 138.) Therein, plaintiff 
again argues that the magistrate judge’s discovery order erroneously rejected plaintiff’s 
arguments and alleges, without making any showing in support of the allegation, that the 
magistrate judge is biased against plaintiff and should be recused from this case. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 
objections lack support, are meritless and provide no basis upon which to reject the pending 
findings and recommendations. 
In accordance with the provisions of 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, including plaintiff’s 
objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 
record and by proper analysis. 
Accordingly: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2026 (Doc. No. 135) are 
adopted in full; 
2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 133), is denied; 
3. To the extent plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 133) and his 
objections (Doc. No. 138) to the pending findings and recommendation may be 
construed as a motion to recuse the assigned magistrate judge, any such motion is 
denied; and 
4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 10, 2026 
DALE A. DROZD 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight