Opinion
No. 1:17-cv-01741-DAD-MJS
02-12-2018
ANTOIAN GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY Y. HAMILTON and GARY A. HUNT, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CLAIM, AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 3)
Plaintiff Antoian Griffin proceeds pro se in this civil rights action brought against Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton and attorney Gary A. Hunt. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On December 29, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and determined that plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that, correspondingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. (Doc. No. 3.) The magistrate judge also noted that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete, but that since the action was without merit, the application should simply be denied. (Id.) The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's § 1983 claims be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id.) The findings and recommendations provided plaintiff with fourteen days in which to file objections thereto. On January 12, 2018, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 4.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff's citation to the decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958) is no-responsive to the analysis set out in the findings and recommendations here, as that decision does not address either judicial immunity or the principle that a private attorney does not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.
Given the foregoing:
1. The findings and recommendations issued December 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice;
4. Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
5. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case.
Dated: February 12 , 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE