Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall

E.D. California

Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03394

StatusUnknown

This text of Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall (Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLA C. ALFARO BRITTANY, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-3394 TLN SCR 13 v. 14 WESTFIELD MALL, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Michella C. Alfaro Brittany (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this matter, 18 which was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1). 20 On June 13, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 4.) The deadline has 23 passed, and no objections have been filed. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2025, (ECF No. 4), are adopted in full; 4 and 5 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the filing fee. 6 DATED: September 9, 2025 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLA C. ALFARO BRITTANY, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-3394 TLN SCR 13 v. 14 WESTFIELD MALL, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Michella C. Alfaro Brittany (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this matter, 18 which was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1). 20 On June 13, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 4.) The deadline has 23 passed, and no objections have been filed. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2025, (ECF No. 4), are adopted in full; 4 and 5 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the filing fee. 6 DATED: September 9, 2025 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michella C. Alfaro Brittany v. Westfield Mall, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michella-c-alfaro-brittany-v-westfield-mall-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack