1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KEVIN B. JOHNSON, No. 2:23-cv-02622-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

13 UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS, THIS ACTION 14 Defendants. (Doc. No. 17, 21, 24) 15 16 Plaintiff Kevin B. Johnson is a former inmate at the Yolo County Monroe Detention 17 Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 18 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the 19 Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 22 complaint (“FAC”) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for 23 failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 17 at 3–4.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the 24 FAC had not made individualized allegations about any of the unknown defendant FBI agents 25 (“Doe defendants”). (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge further found that plaintiff had not properly 26 alleged the FTCA’s jurisdictional requirement that he had exhausted all administrative remedies 27 with an appropriate federal agency. (Id. at 3–4.) The pending findings and recommendations 28 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 1 | twenty-one (21) days after service. Ud. at 5.) On September 25, 2024, plaintiff filed timely 2 | objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 18.) 3 Plaintiffs objections are difficult to decipher but appear to baselessly claim that the 4 | Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in multiple criminal enterprises. (Doc. No. 18 at 3— 5 | 4.) However, this claim does not meaningfully address the deficiencies in his pending complaint 6 | identified by the magistrate judge. In particular, plaintiff does not address the FAC’s lack of 7 | individualized allegations about any of the Doe defendants or his failure to exhaust his 8 | administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. See Fishman vy. Williams, No. 14-cv-04823-MWF- 9 | JC, 2016 WL 11484591, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (“[S]ince plaintiff has not made 10 | individualized allegations about any of the Doe defendants, such unidentifiable defendants may 11 || be dismissed from the First Amended Complaint.”); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 12 | (1993) (“The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted 13 | their administrative remedies.”). Accordingly, the pending complaint must be dismissed because 14 | it fails to state a claim. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 16 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 17 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 17) are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend; 22 3. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motion for an extension of time are 23 denied as moot; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: November 22, 2024 Da A. 2, axel 27 DALE A. DROZD 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE