Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BENJAMIN JOB CASTANEDA, Case No. 25-cv-05048-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING CASE 11 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff Benjamin Job Castaneda brought this action on June 13, 2025, against the 14 City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, Building Owners Management 15 Association, and individual defendants. Compl. (dkt. 1). 16 On suspicion that Castaneda was impersonating an attorney (Mr. Bryan Castaneda), 17 Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued an order on September 4, 2025, to show cause why 18 the case should not have been closed for failure to pay the filing fee or to prosecute the 19 case. OSC (dkt. 12.). Castaneda did not file a response to the order. Consequently, Judge 20 Beeler issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the action. R&R (dkt. 14). The 21 time for Castaneda to object to Judge Beeler’s Report and Recommendation has elapsed, 22 and Castaneda has not objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (a party has 14 days to object to a 23 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 24 The Court finds that Judge Beeler’s recommendation is sound given Castaneda’s 25 failure to pay the filing fee and to prosecute the case. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 26 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may dismiss action pursuant to 27 Rule 41(b) sua sponte for failure to prosecute). 1 For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 2 || Court ADOPTS Judge Beeler’s Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES the action 3 || without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 3, 2025 L EK — CHARLES R. BREYER 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 2 12

16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28