Eric Lamont Johnson v. United States of America ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC LAMONT JOHNSON, Case No. 5:23-cv-02542-SSS-AJR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 14 JAMES B. HICKS, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, 18 all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 20 The Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommends dismissal of the First 21 Amended Complaint without further leave to amend and dismissal of the action with 22 prejudice. [Dkt. 15]. Specifically, the Report finds that the First Amended Complaint 23 fails to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and that 24 further amendment would be futile. [Id.] As stated below, Plaintiff’s objections to the 25 Report, [Dkt. 18], do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or 26 recommendations. 27 Plaintiff objects that he filed his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not Bivens. [Dkt. 28 18 at 1]. This objection overlooks the Report’s correct finding that Plaintiff has no cause 1 || of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the sole Defendant is a federal official. [Dkt. 15 2 || at2n.1]. 3 Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge refused to allow him to serve the 4 || Defendant. [Dkt. 18 at 1]. This objection overlooks the Report’s correct recognition that 5 || federal courts have the authority to dismiss an action, such as this action, before service, 6 || for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [Dkt. 15 at 3]. 7 Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge issued proposed findings and that he did 8 || not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. [Dkt. 18 at 2]. But the Magistrate 9 || Judge’s Report was authorized by the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636. The 10 || undersigned District Judge subsequently has made “‘a de novo determination of those 11 || portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 12 || objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “In providing for a de novo determination 13 || ... Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of 14 || sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and 15 || recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 16 || quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, 17 || conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 18 IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state 19 || aclaim upon which relief may be granted. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on Plaintiff 21 || at his current address of record and on counsel for the defendants who have appeared. 22 23 || DATED: March 18, 2024 24 25 HON. SUNSHINE#®UZANNE SYKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28