1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ICHI WU, No. 2:25-cv-00164-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DYLAN SULLIVAN, et al. (Doc. No. 4) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Ichi Wu is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. This 18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 On February 13, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending this action be dismissed without further leave to amend due to 22 this court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 23 found Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 (Id. at 2–3.) The 24 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 25 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 4.) 26 On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 27 1 The doctrine takes its name from Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

(1923) and District of 28 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

(1983). 1 | recommendations. (Doc. No. 5.) In Plaintiffs objections, Plaintiff does not meaningfully address 2 | the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff continues to ask the court 3 | to overturn the state court’s judgment in an unlawful detainer action. (/d. at 1, 4, 6-7.) Thus, 4 | Plaintiff's purported objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and 5 || recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(©), 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 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 9 | and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 4) are 12 ADOPTED in full; 13 2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend for lack 14 of subject matter jurisdiction; and 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 19 | Dated: _May 9, 2025 RUC Dena Coggins 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28