The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PRAKASH NARAYAN, No. 2:21-cv-02385-DAD-JDP
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
14 BROWN, et al., THIS ACTION
15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 8)
16
17 Plaintiff Prakash Narayan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil
18 action on December 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On March 28, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
21 issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave
22 to amend, because plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and this court does not have
23 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 8 at 3–5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge
24 explained that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court does not have jurisdiction to review
25 state court decisions, and in this action, “plaintiff seeks to challenge the fairness of judicial
26 proceedings and rulings—both by trial and appellate courts—occurring in a civil state court
27 action” initiated by plaintiff in Sacramento County Superior Court. (Id. at 4) (citing D.C. Court
28 of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16 (1983)). Those pending findings and
1 || recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were
2 | to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud. at 5.) To date, no objections to the
3 | pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now
4 | passed.
5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
6 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
7 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
8 Accordingly,
9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 28, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are
10 adopted in full;
11 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim and
12 due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims; and
13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
' | Dated: _ June 15, 2023 Da A. 2, el
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28