(PC) Guzman v. Superior Court of California, County of Orange ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN C. GUZMAN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01644-JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND 13 v. ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ) COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., ) (Doc. 16) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 18 granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the magistrate judge determined the action was barred by 19 the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). Therefore, 20 the magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice to filing a petition for 21 writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 16.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations to Plaintiff at 22 his address of record and granted him 14 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 (Id.) The 14-day period has expired, and Plaintiff did not file any objections or otherwise respond to 24 the Findings and Recommendations. 25 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 26 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire action, the Court finds the Findings and 27 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 31, 2022 (Doc. 16), are 1 ADOPTED in full. 2 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a petition for writ of habeas 3 corpus; and 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 5 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _March 29, 2022 ( Li pA L. warm 8 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28