Hallmon v. Stanislaus County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRITANIE HALLMON, Case No. 1:19-cv-1623-DAD-EPG 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 10 RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CLAIMS v. BE DISMISSED, EXCEPT FOR 11 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AGAINST HER STANISLAUS COUNTY HUMAN EMPLOYER, STANISLAUS COUNTY, 12 RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, et al., FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL 13 Defendants. RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 14 (ECF Nos. 12, 13) 15 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff, Britanie Hallmon (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, commenced this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 19 2000e-5 (“Title VII”), alleging claims against Stanislaus County Human Resource Department 20 (the “County”), and the individuals Tamra Thomas, Mari Tamimi, Shelly Anntonucci, and Joan 21 Sahard (the “Individual Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). This action was initially brought in the 22 Northern District of California, which transferred it to this district on November 15, 2019. On 23 April 16, 2020, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against 24 Defendant Stanislaus County for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 25 Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Plaintiff had not stated any other claims. (ECF No. 12). 26 The Court allowed Plaintiff to choose between proceeding only on the claim found 27 cognizable by the Court in the screening order, amending the complaint, or standing on the 28 4:40 VV LeU MAR SOM ee POC eT OY Ove 1 || complaint subject to the Court issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge 2 || consistent with the screening order. (/d. at 5). On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Court that 3 || she is willing to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the screening order. (ECF No. 4 |} 13). 5 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s April 16, 2020 screening order, 6 || No. 12), and because Plaintiff has notified the Court that she is willing to proceed only 7 |\ her claims against Stanislaus County for employment discrimination in violation of Title VU of 8 || the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (ECF No. 13), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims 9 || be dismissed, except for Plaintiffs claims against defendant Stanislaus County for employment 10 || discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen 13 || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 14 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 16 || within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 17 || 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 18 |] 1991)). 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 1) Dated: _ May 18, 2020 [Je hey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28