Hornemann v. Leal ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIETER HORNEMANN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01615 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 13 v. THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, TERMINATING REMAINING 14 TARA LEAL, et al., MOTIONS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 4) 16 17 Dieter Hornemann is proceeding pro se in this action with complaint, seeking to hold the 18 defendants—including employees of the Clerk’s Office of the Kern County Superior Court and 19 the Clerk’s Office itself—liable for violations of his civil rights. (See Doc. 1.) The magistrate 20 judge found the defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute quasi- 21 judicial immunity. (Doc. 4 at 5-6, citing e.g., Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 22 (2021) and Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987).) 23 The magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed without leave to amend, because 24 amendment would be futile. (Id. at 6-7.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 26 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 4 at 7.) The Court advised him the “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and 1 | the time to do so has passed. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 3 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 4 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 12, 2024 (Doc. 4) are adopted 6 in full. 7 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 8 3. Plaintiff's request for entry of default judgment (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot. 9 4. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. 10 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _March 19, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28