(PS) Coleman v. Coleman

Opinion

TIMOTHY ALLEN COLEMAN, No. 2:20-CV-00548 TLN CKD PS Plaintiff, ORDER v. MELISSA LEA COLEMAN, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Timothy Allen Coleman (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil action. 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 November 8, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 6.) This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. In his Objections, Plaintiff reiterates the merits of his due process claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint but does not address the magistrate judge’s findings that his action is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 18, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: December 14, 2020

1 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2003).