Briggs v. Fenstermaker ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00146-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND 12 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 DAVID FENSTERMAKER, ET AL., (Docs. 13, 14, 15) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Johnny Lee Briggs initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 17 January 31, 2023, against David Fenstermaker, the Community Regional Medical Center, and the 18 Medical Board of Examiners. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint, found Plaintiff’s claims were 21 Heck-barred,1 and issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the complaint, without 22 prejudice. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and then 23 filed a first amended complaint. (Docs. 12, 13.) After screening the first amended complaint, the 24 assigned magistrate judge issued amended findings and recommendations, recommending that the 25 amended complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim, and that this 26 27 1 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), precludes a § 1983 claim based on actions which would “render a conviction or sentence invalid” where that conviction has not been reversed, 28 expunged, or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 1 | action be dismissed. (Doc. 14.) The findings and recommendations permitted Plaintiff fourteen 2 | days to file any objections. (/d.) Plaintiff did so. (Doc. 15.) 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 4 | F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Plaintiff's 5 | objections simply indicate that he has a state habeas matter and some other dismissal motion that 6 | will be heard in state court in late April 2023. (Doc. 15.) The objections do not meaningfully call 7 | into question the findings and recommendations. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the 8 | Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 | Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 7, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 11 ADOPTED IN FULL. 12 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED, without prejudice, 13 for failure to state a claim. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ April 25, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28