1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWYANE M. WRIGHT, No. 2:25-cv-00690-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

14 MICHAEL LONG, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND

15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 3) 16

17 18 Plaintiff Dwayne Wright is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action initiated on 19 February 27, 2025. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 April 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without leave to amend for several reasons. 23 (Doc. No. 3.) First, Defendant is not a proper defendant because he is Plaintiff’s former defense 24 attorney, and defense attorneys are not considered state or federal governments actors under 42 25 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Id. at 3.) Second, 26 Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Id.) 27 Third, because Plaintiff’s has not stated a federal claim and Plaintiff fails to establish diversity 28 jurisdiction, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 1 | remaining state law claims. (/d. at 4.) 2 Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 3 | any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. Ud. at 4 || 5.) Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations on April 16, 2025.! 5 | (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiffs objections consist solely of the transcript from his September 24, 2024 6 | revocation hearing. (/d.) Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s findings 7 | and recommendations. Consequently, Plaintiff's objections provide no basis upon which to reject 8 | the pending findings and recommendations. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 10 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 11 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 3, 2025 (Doc. No. 3) are 14 ADOPTED in full; and 15 2. Plaintiffs claims arising under federal law are dismissed without leave to amend 16 for failure to state a claim; 17 3. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law 18 claims; and 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20

IT IS SO ORDERED. □

22 | Dated: _ June 24, 2025 RIV Os Dena Coggins 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 ' Plaintiff also filed an unauthorized first amended complaint on April 28, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff added the transcript of his revocation hearing on September 24, 2024 before Judge 27 | Mueller and a copy of the Findings and Recommendations issue by Magistrate Judge Peterson. (Id.) Otherwise, the first amended complaint is substantively identical to Plaintiff's initial 28 | complaint.