From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chatman v. Dillion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 6, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC

03-06-2020

LARRY ALONZO CHATMAN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY DILLION, Solano County Public Defender, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Larry Alonzo Chatman ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 16, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 6.) On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 9.) On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 11.)

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.

The Findings and Recommendations recommend dismissal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's objections do not provide any legal or factual argument that supports rejecting the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are overruled. In light of the Court's ruling, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 16, 2020 (ECF No. 6), are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot;

3. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

/s/_________

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Chatman v. Dillion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 6, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020)
Case details for

Chatman v. Dillion

Case Details

Full title:LARRY ALONZO CHATMAN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY DILLION, Solano County Public…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 6, 2020

Citations

No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020)