(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Opinion

CASSANDRA B. CHARLES, No. 2:19-cv-2555 KJM AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER MANAGEMENT, et al, Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On April 27, 2020, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court writes briefly here to address plaintiff’s objections. First, contrary to Ms. Charles’s argument, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) apply to any “person” who is “unable to pay such fees or give security,” not just incarcerated persons. Second, the Magistrate Judge correctly described the standard that applies to the screening process under § 1915(e) and correctly determined that the second amended complaint does not state a claim of age discrimination; it pleads neither that Ms. Charles was qualified for each position nor that similarly qualified younger applicants were hired in her place. See, e.g., Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987). Third, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect older workers as a class. See, e.g., Smith, 544 U.S. at 232. Finally, as explained in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff’s ADA claims could not succeed even if they were properly exhausted. See F&Rs at 5–6, ECF No. 13. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The amended findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2020, are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 10) is DISMISSED with prejudice and this case is CLOSED. DATED: November 5, 2020.