Shiloh v. County of Kern et al, No. 1:2020cv01438 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Complaint Without Prejudice, and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNY J. SHILOH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-01438-DAD-JLT v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 17 (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3) 18 19 Plaintiff Kenny J. Shiloh seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 20 21 alleging claims of discrimination based on a disability, civil rights violations pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983, due process violations, and identity theft. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) The matter was 23 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 24 302. 25 On October 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 26 recommendations, recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and 27 plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 3 at 13.) Specifically, the 28 magistrate judge found that: (1) plaintiff’s allegations do not support cognizable claims under the 1 1 Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or against municipal or state 2 entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims barred 3 by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibiting appellate review in federal court of decisions made 4 by state court; and (3) the federal identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, does not provide a 5 private cause of action or a civil remedy. (Id. at 6–12.) The findings and recommendations also 6 found that it did not appear that the listed deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint could be cured by 7 amendment, such that granting leave to amend would be futile. (Id. at 13.) The findings and 8 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be 9 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service. (Id. at 3.) To date, plaintiff has filed no 10 objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time for doing so has now passed. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 12 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 13 undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record and 14 proper analysis. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. 17 The findings and recommendations issued on October 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full; 18 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; and 19 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 10, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.