Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00477-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIUS AUGUSTINE KENNETH ) Case No. 1:07-cv-0477 OWW TAG

PEYTON, a.k.a. ELLIS, )

) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

Plaintiff, ) RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

) COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 

vs. ) (Doc. 14)

)

SCOTT SPIELMAN, )

Kern County Deputy District Attorney, )

 )

 Defendant. )

 )

On March 27, 2007, Plaintiff Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton (“Plaintiff”), a pre-trial

detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Kern County Deputy

District Attorney Scott Spielman (“Defendant”) knew, or should have known, that the investigating

police detective was providing false and misleading evidence against him. (Doc. 1). This matter

was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-

303. 

On April 27, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 4). After

initially determining that the complaint stated claims upon which relief could be granted, the

Magistrate Judge subsequently reconsidered its April 27, 2007, order, sua sponte, and concluded that

Plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that this Court

should refrain from action relating to ongoing state criminal proceedings. (Docs. 4, 13). 

On October 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations,

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 11/19/07 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

recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for reasons of

comity. (Doc. 14). This document was served on all parties and contained notice that Plaintiff’s

objections were to be filed on or before November 14, 2007. (Doc. 14). To date, no objections have

been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations

filed on October 24, 2007, are supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 14), filed October 14, 2007, are ADOPTED

IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00477-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2