The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
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