(PS) Chatman v. Dillion ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY ALONZO CHATMAN, No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NANCY DILLION, Solano County Public Defender, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Larry Alonzo Chatman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings 19 this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 21 On January 16, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 22 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 6.) On January 24, 24 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 9.) On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff 25 filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 11.) 26 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 27 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 28 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 1 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 2 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 3 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 4 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 6 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 7 judge’s analysis. 8 The Findings and Recommendations recommend dismissal with prejudice for lack of 9 jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s objections do not provide any legal or factual argument that supports 10 rejecting the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 11 In light of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is moot. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 16, 2020 (ECF No. 6), are adopted 14 in full; 15 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot; 16 3. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend; and 17 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 6, 2020 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28