Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00935-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORREY SELCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES, MARK

WILLIAMS, XAVIER CASTRO,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-935-JAM-EFB PS

ORDER

On March 2, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:19-cv-00935-JAM-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 2, 2020, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant DSS’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 13) is granted and

all claims against defendant DSS are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

3. Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 9, 15, 22, 30) are denied;

4. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 6, 14, 23) are denied as moot;

5. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Mark Williams and Xavier Castro are sua sponte

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

6. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

 DATED: March 23, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00935-JAM-EFB Document 32 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2