Guerra v. Madera Police Department

Opinion

LEONANGEL E. GUERRA, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01225 JLT EPG ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE v. ) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE ) MADERA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) (Doc. 6) ) Defendant. ) ) )

Leonangel Guerra seeks to hold the Madera Police Department liable for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop. The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to name a proper defendant, despite the Court informing him previously that the police department is not a proper defendant. (Doc. 6 at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim. (Id. at 5-6.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff was previously provided the relevant legal standards for his claim and failed to cure the pleading deficiencies the Court identified in screening his initial complaint.1 (Id. at 6-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 7.) 1 The Magistrate Judge informed the plaintiff about how to name Doe defendants and explained that while the Madera Police Department was not a proper party to this case, that the City of Merced—assuming he expanded his factual allegations to include necessary facts—may be. (Doc. 4 at 4-5, 6) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 6 at 7.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Although granted an extension of time—and instructed to file any objections no later than January 10, 2025 (Doc. 8)—Plaintiff did not file objections. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 21, 2024 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED in full. 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: _ January 22, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE