Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00753/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00753-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-00753-DAD-CKD (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 

this civil action on March 12, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 3, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to show 

cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 

No. 5 at 2.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had not alleged a federal claim 

against defendant and that therefore there was no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action based on plaintiff’s complaint. (Id. at 1–2.) On April 26, 2024, plaintiff filed a 

difficult-to-decipher response to that order to show cause which did not address the complaint’s 

deficiencies as identified by the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, on July 10, 2024, 

the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9.) Those findings and 

Case 2:24-cv-00753-DAD-CKD Document 10 Filed 12/16/24 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

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no objections to the 

pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 10, 2024 (Doc. No. 9) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00753-DAD-CKD Document 10 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 2