Smith v. George Brown Fitness

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01561 JLT SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 GEORGE BROWN FITNESS, et al., COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

15 Defendants. (Doc. 5)

16 17 Candace Smith seeks to hold the defendants liable for racial profiling, sexual harassment, and 18 for an injury suffered while using a jacuzzi sauna. (See generally Doc. 1.) Because Plaintiff is 19 proceeding in forma pauperis, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 5.) The magistrate judge found the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, 21 because all identified defendants are citizens of California. (Id. at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge 22 determined the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because “Plaintiff fails to specify a federal 23 statute or constitutional doctrine that gives rise to her claims” and any claim related to the jacuzzi 24 sauna arises under state tort law. (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge also found amendment should not be 25 permitted, because Plaintiff was well-advised of the applicable pleading standards yet still failed to 26 allege sufficient facts. (Id. at 6-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss 27 the action “without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id. at 7.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 1 | objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 5 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d. at 8, citing 3 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 4 | time to do so expired. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 7 | supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 23, 2025 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED in 9 full. 10 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 B IS SO ORDERED. 14| Dated: _ February 13, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28