Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00019/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00019-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ALONZO CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY DILLION, Solano County Public 

Defender,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff Larry Alonzo Chatman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings 

this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 16, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

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

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 6.) On January 24, 

2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 9.) On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff 

filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 11.) 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 03/09/20 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

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). 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). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

The Findings and Recommendations recommend dismissal with prejudice for lack of 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s objections do not provide any legal or factual argument that supports 

rejecting the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 

In light of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 16, 2020 (ECF No. 6), are adopted

in full;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot;

3. The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00019-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2