1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL M. WARD, No. 2:22-cv-02195-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMPLAINT

15 HUMAN SERVICES, et al., (Doc. No. 10) 16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff Michael M. Ward, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 19 action on December 9, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. No. 8) be dismissed for 23 failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 10.) In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate 24 judge first found that plaintiff’s allegations challenging the termination of his parental rights fall 25 squarely within the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and he fails to allege any exception to 26 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Id. at 3) (citing Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 27 858–59 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional rule 28 prohibiting federal courts from exercising appellate review over final state court judgments.”)). 1 The magistrate judge next concluded that plaintiff had failed to assert a judicial deception claim 2 against defendant Daniels because plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to show that 3 she made a material misrepresentation. (Doc. No. 10 at 4.) Finally, the magistrate judge 4 concluded that plaintiff could not maintain his claims against Judge Daniel Calabretta, who is 5 entitled to judicial immunity.1 (Id. at 5) (citing Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th 6 Cir. 1988) (“Judges are absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts taken within 7 the jurisdiction of their courts. . . . A judge loses absolute immunity only when [the judge] acts 8 in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.”).) For 9 these reasons, the magistrate judge concluded that the SAC should be dismissed, without further 10 leave to amend. (See Doc. No. 10 at 5) (“In light of the second amended complaint’s deficiencies 11 and that plaintiff has already been given leave to amend . . . granting plaintiff another opportunity 12 to amend would not cure the complaint’s deficiencies.”). Those pending findings and 13 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 14 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) On July 31, 2024, plaintiff filed 15 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) 16 In his objections, plaintiff first argues that the actions of defendant Daniels, as a social 17 worker, are not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 1–3.) He argues that “qualified immunity 18 has no basis in law” and that “the laws that [defendant Daniels] violated was [sic] clearly 19 established.” (Id. at 1.) However, the magistrate judge made no finding regarding qualified 20 immunity as to defendant Daniels or any other defendant. The magistrate judge’s 21 recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s SAC does not in any way rely upon a finding of qualified 22 immunity. Accordingly, plaintiff presents no basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s 23 finding that plaintiff has not stated a claim against defendant Daniels. 24 In the remainder of his objections, plaintiff simply restates his claims under the Fourth 25 Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Doc. No. 11 at 4–7.) In this 26

27 1 As the magistrate judge noted, at the time that plaintiff filed this action, Judge Calabretta was a California Superior Court Judge. He is now a district judge for the Eastern District of California. 28 (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) 1 || restatement, he provides factual background regarding the alleged wiretap of his phone, 2 | interviews of his children, and removal of his children from his custody. Ud.) However, plaintiff 3 | does not meaningful address any of the analysis in the pending findings and recommendations. 4 | Accordingly, the court finds that these arguments do not present a basis upon which to reject the 5 | magistrate judge’s recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 8 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2024 (Doc. No. 10) are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. Plaintiffs second amended complaint (Doc. No. 8) is dismissed, without leave to 13 amend; and 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _November 7, 2024 □□□ A. 2, ye 17 DALE A. DROZD ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28