Huene v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury

Full title: DONALD R. HUENE, Plaintiffs, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 14, 2012

No. CIV-S-11-2110-JAM-KJN-PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2012)

Opinion

DONALD R. HUENE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ET AL., Defendants. No. CIV-S-11-2110-JAM-KJN-PS United States District Court, E.D. California. June 14, 2012

          ORDER

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         On April 10, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.

         Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

         The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

         1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 10, 2012, are ADOPTED;

         2. Defendant Anthony Shelly's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is granted;

         3. To the extent plaintiff's first claim for relief is premised on the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, that claim is dismissed with prejudice as to Shelly for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted;

         4. To the extent plaintiff's first claim for relief is premised on the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, that claim is dismissed with prejudice as to Shelly for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted;

         5. Plaintiff's second claim for relief, alleging a violation of the Privacy Act, is dismissed with prejudice as to Shelly for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted;

         6. Plaintiff's third claim for relief, alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed with prejudice as to Shelly, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that attempts to allege a claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or both; and

         7. The magistrate judge shall enter a separate order regarding the deadline to file an amended complaint after resolution of the findings and recommendations that are pending before the court (Dkt. Nos. 34-35).