Ross v. Bolin et al, No. 1:2021cv01753 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations in Full and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/24/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID R. ROSS, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:21-cv-01753-JLT-SAB Plaintiff, v. NINA BOLIN, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DIMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Docs. 9, 10, 11) Defendants. 16 17 David R. Ross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 18 against Nina Bolin and Ursula Dean, Operations Managers for the Department of Treasury, 19 Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on December 10, 2021. (Doc. 1.) His claims relate to 20 Economic Impact Payments that Plaintiff claims entitlement to, but which he did not receive. 21 (See generally Doc. 9.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302. 23 After screening the complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended complaint, 24 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the 25 second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, for lack of jurisdiction and 26 failure to state a claim, and that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff filed objections to 27 the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 11.) 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 1 1 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 2 carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 3 supported by the record and proper analysis. The Findings and Recommendations explain in 4 detail why Plaintiff’s claims regarding his EIPs are insufficiently alleged, and Plaintiff’s generic 5 objections do not undermine the magistrate judge’s reasoning or conclusions. Based upon the 6 foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. 8 9 ADOPTED. 2. 10 11 The Findings and Recommendations dated May 31, 2022 (Doc. 10) are Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 9) is DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2022 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.