James Constant v. Schorr Law ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CONSTANT, Case No. 2:21-cv-08608 JFW (KES) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 SCHORR LAW, STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the 19 records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 6 [“R&R”].) The Court has engaged in a de novo 21 review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections 22 (Dkt. 10) have been made. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and 23 recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. 24 In his Objections, Plaintiff contends that “the Complaint can be amended and 25 refiled under the Bivens doctrine.” (Dkt. 10 at 2.) However, just as “a private 26 lawyer representing a client in the lawyer’s traditional adversarial role is not 27 considered a state actor for purposes of § 1983” (R&R at 2) (citation omitted), 28 “[p]rivate lawyers with no connection to the federal government cannot be sued 1 | under Bivens.” Vennings v. Sigal, No. 2:19-CV-2544, 2019 WL 5654055, at *2, 2 | 2019 US. Dist. LEXIS 189246, at *3 (D.S.C. Oct. 10, 2019), report and 3 | recommendation adopted, No. CV 2:19-2544, 2019 WL 5617939, 2019 U.S. Dist. 4 | LEXIS 189845 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2019), aff'd sub nom. Vennings v. Leeke, 797 F. 5 | App’x 113 (4th Cir. 2020); accord Brodie v. Worthington, 841 F. Supp. 2d 91, 97 6 | (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Brodie v. Rosen, No. 12-5021, 2012 WL 1927268, 7 | 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9211 (D.C. Cir. May 4, 2012); Guyton v. Lappin, No. 3:11- 8 | CV-1390, 2012 WL 511571, at *5, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19136, at *17 (M.D. Pa. 9 || Feb. 15, 2012). 10 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing the 12 | Complaint without prejudice but without leave to amend. 13 14 | DATED: December 28, 2021 ae CLE 15 ISHN ¥. WALTER 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28