Lucero Gonzalez v. Optum Care Cancer Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00257
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 KENIA LUCERO GONZALEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-00257-RFB-BNW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 OPTUM CARE CANCER CENTER,

11 Defendant.

12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) of 14 the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on November 11, 2024. 15 For the following reasons, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation in full. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 19 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 22 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 23 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 24 “any review,” de novo or otherwise. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local 25 Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by November 25, 2024. In response, Plaintiff Kenia Lucero 26 Gonzalez filed two motions for an extension of time. ECF Nos. 14, 15. The Court extended the 27 deadline to object to January 1, 2025. ECF No. 16. Instead of filing an objection, Plaintiff filed 28 1 four additional motions to extend time. ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22. 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s 4 recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. In the Third 5 Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for reporting to HR that she was 6 uncomfortable with questions posed to her by her supervisor. The questions concerned a social 7 media post, whether she had used the company fax for personal use, whether she had used the 8 company phone for personal use, and whether she had discussed patient information in front of 9 another patient. These facts fail to establish a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil 10 Rights Act of 1964, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) she engaged in a protected 11 activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) “a causal link exists between the 12 protected activity and the adverse action.” Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 13 2003) (citation omitted). 14 Here, Plaintiff’s reporting of the questions to HR does not fall within the ambit of 15 protected activity as she was not opposing unlawful conduct under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 16 2000e–3(a) (making it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any of [its] employees . 17 . . because [she] has opposed any practice that is made an unlawful employment practice by this 18 subchapter”); Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 1997) (defining protected 19 activity as an “employee’s opposition to conduct made an unlawful employment practice [under 20 Title VII]”). None of the questions implicated Title VII’s protections against discrimination on 21 the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2. Therefore, 22 Plaintiff’s retaliation claim lacks merit. 23 Finally, Local Rule IA 6-1 permits parties to file motions or stipulations to extend time. 24 See LR IA 6-1(a). That rule provides that a motion to extend time “must state the reasons for the 25 extension requested[.]” Id. Plaintiff’s four Motions to Extend Time fail to do so, despite notice 26 from the Court in its December 10, 2024, Order that such a reason is required. 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and 28 Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Extend Time (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21, 3 22) are DENIED. 4 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this matter accordingly. 5 6 7 DATED: January 31, 2025. 8 9 _______________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28