(PS) Coleman v. Coleman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY ALLEN COLEMAN, No. 2:20-CV-00548 TLN CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 MELISSA LEA COLEMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Timothy Allen Coleman (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil action. The 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On November 8, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) On 24 November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 25 6.) 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); see 1 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 2 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 3 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 4 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 5 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 7 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 8 judge’s analysis. 9 In his Objections, Plaintiff reiterates the merits of his due process claims asserted in the 10 First Amended Complaint but does not address the magistrate judge’s findings that his action is 11 prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 18, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are 14 adopted in full; 15 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED without leave to 16 amend; and 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: December 14, 2020 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 28 F.3d 1148, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2003).