(PS) Peden v. Comcast Communications LLC et al, No. 2:2022cv01551 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2023 ADOPTING in FULL 5 Findings and Recommendations. This action is DISMISSED due to failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and failure to allege that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff' claims, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY ELVIS PEDEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS LLC, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01551-DAD-JDP (PS) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM Defendants. (Doc. No. 5) 17 18 Plaintiff Wesley Elvis Peden, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 19 action on September 6, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 12, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation 22 recommending that this action be dismissed, without leave to amend, because plaintiff’s first 23 amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and fails to cure the jurisdictional 24 deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge in the screening order dated April 14, 2023 (Doc. 25 No. 3). (Doc. No. 5 at 2–3.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 26 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 27 service. (Id. at 4.) On June 27, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 28 recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) 1 1 In his objections, plaintiff does not substantively address the findings and 2 recommendations. Rather, plaintiff purports to attack the ethics of the “person responsible for the 3 recommendation to dismiss this case.” (Doc. No. 6.) The undersigned will disregard plaintiff’s 4 accusations as wholly inappropriate. Plaintiff’s objections simply provide no basis upon which to 5 reject the pending findings and recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 8 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 9 record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly: 11 1. 12 The findings and recommendations issued on June 12, 2023 (Doc. No. 5) are adopted in full; 13 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for 14 relief and failure to allege that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over 15 plaintiff’s claims; and 16 3. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. July 20, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
