(PC) Carthen v. Scott

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00227
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN, No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 14 P. SCOTT, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 54, 82) 16 17 Plaintiff Tremane Darnell Carthen is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 19 (1971). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 20 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 30, 2023,1 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 23 54) be granted and that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 24 claim under Bivens. (Doc. No. 82.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 25 the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one 26 (21) days after service. (Id.) 27

28 1 This action was reassigned to the undersigned on April 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 89.) 1 On February 15, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 2 recommendations. (Doc. No. 83.) However, in those 12 pages of objections, plaintiff merely 3 recites portions of the findings and recommendations and restates the arguments that he had 4 advanced in his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and that the magistrate judge already 5 thoroughly addressed in the pending findings and recommendations. (Id.) Despite advancing 6 these purported objections, plaintiff also requested an extension of time in which to file objections 7 to the pending findings and recommendations, which the magistrate judge granted on February 8 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 84.) 9 Thereafter, on April 11, 2023, plaintiff again requested an extension of time in which to 10 file objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 85.) In an order issued 11 on April 12, 2023, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time 12 in which to file objections.2 (Doc. No. 86.) Nevertheless, no further objections to the findings 13 and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so as extended has now 14 passed. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 16 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 17 including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 18 supported by the record and proper analysis. 19 Accordingly: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2023 (Doc. No. 82) are 21 adopted in full; 22 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 54) is granted; 23 ///// 24 ///// 25

2 The service copy of the court’s April 12, 2023 order, which was mailed to plaintiff at his 26 address of record, was returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Moved.” Thus, plaintiff 27 was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than July 3, 2023. To date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the 28 court. 1 3. This action is dismissed; and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ April 3, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28