Hans v. Dept. of State Hospitals, Coalinga

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

11 TANVEER HANS, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01214 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, ) DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT 14 DEPT. OF STATE HOSPITALS, ) LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DIRECTING THE COALINGA, ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 ) Defendants. ) (Docs. 9, 15) 16 )

17 Tanveer Hans sought to hold the Department of State Hospitals, Coalinga, liable for violations 18 of Title VII. (Doc. 1.) Defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 19 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting the Court lacked jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s 20 claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and the complaint was untimely. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff 21 did not oppose the motion. 22 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s claim was previously adjudicated by the state Court, and 23 the doctrine of res judicata precluded Plaintiff from raising his claim before this Court. (Id. at 7-10.) 24 The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff’s claim was untimely, because “[a]n action brought under 25 Title VII must be filed within 90 days of receipt of a right to sue letter from the EEOC or appropriate 26 state agency,” and Plaintiff filed this action more than three years after receiving his right to sue letter. 27 (Id. at 11.) The magistrate judge determined the identified deficiencies could not be cured by 28 1 || amendment, and recommended the Court grant the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend. (d. a 2 |} 11-12.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified Plaintiff that 4 || any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 15 at 12.) The Court advised the parties that the 5 || “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (7d. 6 |} at 13, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 7 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 9 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 10 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 29, 2025 (Doc. 15) are ADOPTED. 12 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. 13 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 14 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against 15 Plaintiff, and to close this case. 16 18 || Dated: _ August 19, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28