(PS) Narayan v. Brown ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRAKASH NARAYAN, No. 2:21-cv-02385-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BROWN, et al., THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 8) 16 17 Plaintiff Prakash Narayan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 18 action on December 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 28, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 21 issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave 22 to amend, because plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and this court does not have 23 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 8 at 3–5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 24 explained that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court does not have jurisdiction to review 25 state court decisions, and in this action, “plaintiff seeks to challenge the fairness of judicial 26 proceedings and rulings—both by trial and appellate courts—occurring in a civil state court 27 action” initiated by plaintiff in Sacramento County Superior Court. (Id. at 4) (citing D.C. Court 28 of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16 (1983)). Those pending findings and 1 || recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 2 | to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud. at 5.) To date, no objections to the 3 | pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 4 | passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 7 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 28, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are 10 adopted in full; 11 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim and 12 due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims; and 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. ' | Dated: _ June 15, 2023 Da A. 2, el 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28