(PS) Foster v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, No. 2:22-cv-00396-JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 3, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 12), 18 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Plaintiff filed various notices and 20 requests, but his final notice filed on June 13, 2022 states that he has “no objections” to the 21 court’s findings and recommendations (ECF No. 14). 22 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 25 1983). 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. In response to 28 plaintiff’s June 2, 2022 filing, docketed as a “request for clarification” (ECF No. 11), and his 1 June 10, 2022 filing (ECF No. 13), the court rejects plaintiff’s assertion of misconduct in the 2 handling of his case. According to this court’s local rules, all pro se complaints filed in forma 3 pauperis (“IFP”) (like th i s one) go to the assigned magistrate judge for the required initial 4 screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21). If the magistrate judge 5 concludes that the complaint does not state a claim, the magistrate judge issues findings and 6 recommendations for the assigned district judge to review (as was done here). The defendant’s 7 absence and the plaintiff’s consent are irrelevant during the IFP screening process. As explained 8 in the findings and recommendations, the Clerk of Court erroneously issued a summons and case 9 initiating documents immediately upon the filing of plaintiff’s complaint and IFP application 10 (ECF No. 12 at 3); however, that mistake was corrected and does not impact the magistrate 11 judge’s conclusion—adopted herein—that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s request for clarification (ECF No. 11) is DENIED beyond the explanation 14 provided above; 15 2. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 12) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 16 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); and 18 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 19 Dated: July 18, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 20 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28