Opinion
1:19-cv-00655-DAD-BAM (PC)
09-29-2021
WILLIAM RAY HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. SANJEEV BATRA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOOMENDATIONS
(DOC. NO. 38)
Plaintiff William Ray Huffman is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 26, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Hamerick and Withrow (Doc. No. 30) and defendant Batra's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 31) be granted. (Doc. No. 38.) Therein, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's federal claims brought against all three defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because plaintiff asserted the same claims in his prior state habeas proceedings. (Id. at 10.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on September 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 39.) In his objections, plaintiff argues that in his state habeas proceeding the court did not reach a decision on the merits of his claims and that his current § 1983 claims are therefore not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Id.) The court has reviewed the decision in plaintiffs state habeas action (Doc. No. 31 at 14) and concludes that plaintiff received a final judgment on the merits in that action, as was concluded in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 38 at 10.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 26, 2021 (Doc. No. 38) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants Hamerick and Withrow's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 30) is granted;
3. Defendant Batra's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 31) is granted;
4. This action is dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.