Bey v. Garcia ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KABA BEY, No. 1:20-cv-00795-NONE-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 13 v. GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH AND TO DISMISS FIRST 14 FRANCISCO GARCIA, AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 15 Defendants. OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE CASE 16 (Doc. Nos. 17, 19) 17 18 Plaintiff Kaba Bey is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against defendant Francisco 20 Garcia in connection with a traffic stop. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 21 Judge on November 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 18.) 22 On January 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that defendant’s motion to quash and to dismiss be granted, that plaintiff’s first 24 amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that this case be closed. (Doc. No. 19.) 25 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 26 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff 27 filed objections on January 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 20.) 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Most notably, 4 | the findings and recommendations correctly indicate that “[b]oth of Plaintiff's amended 5 | complaints hinge on his view that as a Moroccan citizen, he is” among other things, “not subject 6 || to any state law requiring valid driver’s licenses.” (Doc. No. 19 at 10.) In reaching this 7 | conclusion, the magistrate judge quoted a decision issued by another judge of this district in a 8 || separate case brought by this same plaintiff. (Ud. (citing Bey v. Saucedo, No. 2:19-cv-2113-TLN- 9 | DB (PS), 2020 WL 1640000, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 10 | 2020 WL 3840774 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2020).) That ruling persuasively explains why plaintiff's 11 | claims have no merit and should be dismissed. (See id.) Plaintiffs objections fail to undermine 12 | this reasoning. (See generally Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff does request an additional opportunity to 13 | amend his complaint for a third time but fails to provide anything but conclusory assertions about 14 | how he could amend to cure the defects this and other courts have identified with his legal 15 | theories. The undersigned concludes that granting further leave to amend would be futile in this 16 | case and is not justified under such circumstances. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 5, 2021, (Doc. No. 19), are adopted 19 in full; 20 2. Defendant’s motion to quash and to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED; 21 3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE; and 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 23 closing the case and then to close this case. 24 | ITIS SOORDERED. ~ 25 | Dated: _ January 27, 2021 Jae 1 Yau 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28