The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DAMEAD HOLMES, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1573 JLT EPG
)
12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
14 JAMES HORG, et al., ) THIS CASE
)
15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 5)
)
16
17 Damead Holmes, a pastor at Unified Christian Church, asserts that he was physically assaulted
18 by a church board member and other church leaders “resisted the peaceful transition of the church’s
19 governance.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20 § 1915(e)(2)(B), because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis with this action. (Doc. 5 at 2.)
21 The magistrate judge observed that through the complaint, Plaintiff sought a temporary
22 restraining order against the defendants and indicated this Court has jurisdiction based upon 18 U.S.C.
23 § 1514. (Doc. 5 at 4; see also Doc. 1 at 4.) The magistrate judge determined that “Plaintiff’s reliance
24 on this statute is not proper because it does not confer a private right of action necessary to establish
25 subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.” (Id.) In addition, because Plaintiff asserted that one of the
26 defendants had a restraining order against him, the magistrate judge found “to the extent that Plaintiff
27 seeks federal intervention in any state court proceedings, the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman
28 doctrines prohibit such relief under these circumstances.” (Id. at 7; see also id. at 5-7.) Therefore, the
1 || magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice and without leave to
2 || amend due to the lack of jurisdiction “and the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines.”
3 || Ud. at 7-8.)
4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any
5 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 5 at 8.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file
6 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing □□□□□□□
7 || v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to dc
8 || so has passed.
9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi
10 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported
11 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 8, 2025 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED i
13 full.
14 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
16
17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated: _ February 18, 2025 ( Lint Up | Wy h \
19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28