Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, 

AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 54, 82)

Plaintiff Tremane Darnell Carthen is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). 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 January 30, 2023,1the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 

54) be granted and that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable 

claim under Bivens. (Doc. No. 82.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 

the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one 

(21) days after service. (Id.)

1

 This action was reassigned to the undersigned on April 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 89.)

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 15, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 83.) However, in those 12 pages of objections, plaintiff merely 

recites portions of the findings and recommendations and restates the arguments that he had 

advanced in his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss and that the magistrate judge already 

thoroughly addressed in the pending findings and recommendations. (Id.) Despite advancing 

these purported objections, plaintiff also requested an extension of time in which to file objections 

to the pending findings and recommendations, which the magistrate judge granted on February 

16, 2023. (Doc. No. 84.)

Thereafter, on April 11, 2023, plaintiff again requested an extension of time in which to 

file objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 85.) In an order issued 

on April 12, 2023, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time 

in which to file objections.

2

 (Doc. No. 86.) Nevertheless, no further objections to the findings 

and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so as extended has now 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 30, 2023 (Doc. No. 82) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 54) is granted;

/////

/////

2

 The service copy of the court’s April 12, 2023 order, which was mailed to plaintiff at his 

address of record, was returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Moved.” Thus, plaintiff 

was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than July 3, 2023. To 

date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the 

court.

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. This action is dismissed; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 90 Filed 04/04/24 Page 3 of 3