Warfield v. McNaughton Daily Republic Newspaper

Full title: BRODERICK JAMES WARFIELD, Plaintiff, v. MCNAUGHTON DAILY REPUBLIC…

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 22, 2023

2:22-cv-01951-DAD-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01951-DAD-KJN

01-22-2023

BRODERICK JAMES WARFIELD, Plaintiff, v. MCNAUGHTON DAILY REPUBLIC NEWSPAPER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(DOC. NO. 5)

Plaintiff Broderick James Warfield is proceeding pro se in this civil action. 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 November 21, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave to amend, because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's apparent state law claims for libel and defamation. (Doc. No. 5.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

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, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 21, 2022 (Doc. No. 5) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim;

3. Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice due to this court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over those claims;

4. This action is dismissed; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.