(PS) Raheem v. Zurich North America Insurance, No. 2:2018cv02762 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/18/2018 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING the action without leave to amend, and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Huang, H)
Download PDF
(PS) Raheem v. Zurich North America Insurance Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLATUNJI RAHEEM, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-2762-JAM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE, Defendant. 17 On November 14, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 3), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On December 4, 2018, 20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4), which have been 21 considered by the court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 2 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 5 Documentation attached to plaintiff’s objections suggests that plaintiff wishes to challenge the 6 deduction of certain amounts from worker’s compensation benefits paid to plaintiff by defendant 7 Zurich based on a child support obligation. This court does not have jurisdiction to review child 8 support orders, and as the magistrate judge noted, plaintiff cannot state cognizable claims under 9 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 241 against defendant Zurich. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are adopted. 12 2. The action is dismissed without leave to amend. 13 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) is denied as 14 15 16 17 18 moot. 4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. DATED: December 18, 2018 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2