Pacheco v. Gomes

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELISSA PACHECO, Case No.: 1:25-cv-0654 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TERMINATING THE MOTION TO PROCEED 14 SELMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., et al., IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Defendants. CLOSE THIS CASE

16 (Docs. 2, 7)

17 Melissa Pacheco seeks to hold the defendants liable for failure to implement an identified 18 504 accommodation for her son, which she asserts resulted in her son having “failing grades and 19 denial of ability to participate in graduation.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Previously, the Court found Plaintiff 20 lacked standing to pursue her claims, because she cannot bring a pro se action on her child’s 21 behalf. (See Doc. 6 at 2.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action 22 and failed to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge determined 23 terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit 24 in Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019. (Id. at 2-3.) Thus, the 25 magistrate judge recommended dismissal “without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to 26 prosecute this action, and/or failure to comply with the Court’s order.” (Id. at 3.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 4.) The Court advised him that the “failure to 1 | file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., 2 | citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 3 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 6 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued June 30, 2025 (Doc. 7) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is terminated as MOOT. 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ July 28, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28