Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS That Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 19 , 31 , 35 ; ORDER REGARDING Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint 1 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/6/13: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, in compliance with this Order within 30 days. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
JASDEV SINGH,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00498-AWI-SKO

10
11

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART

Plaintiff,

12
v.
13

(Doc. 19, 31, 35)
14

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,

15
16

ORDER REGARDING SCREENING
OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
(Doc. 1)

Defendant.
17

/

18
19

On April 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

20

that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 35.) The F&R was

21

served on all parties appearing in the action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

22

within twenty-eight (28) days after service of the order. Defendant filed an objection.1

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

24

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the

25

Magistrate Judge's F&R is supported by the record and proper analysis.

26
1

27
28

Defendant's objection was limited to noting that the Conclusion and Recommendation section of the April 19,
2013, F&R at page 35 omitted reference to Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for emotional distress under the Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), which was substantively addressed at pages 27:6 through 28:20, wherein the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Plaintiff's FTCA claim be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 35, 27:6-28:20.) No objection
to the substantive recommendation was made.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1

1.

2
3

FULL;
2.

4

without prejudice to filing a new action following administrative exhaustion;
3.

7

claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new action following

9

administrative exhaustion;
4.

11
12

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies under the Privacy Act is DENIED;

5.

13

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, and sixth
causes of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA

14
15

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's seventh cause of action under the
FTCA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is GRANTED and the

8

10

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED

5
6

The Findings and Recommendations issued April 19, 2013, are ADOPTED IN

is DENIED;
6.

16

Based upon sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A:

17

a.

18

DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to

19

state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

20

b.

21
22

Plaintiff's first, second, third, and sixth causes of action are

Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is DISMISSED with prejudice and
without leave to amend; and

7.

23

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days, but as set forth above,
amendment of the complaint in this case is limited to the first, second, third,

24

and sixth causes of action.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated:
0m8i78

June 6, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2