Strojnik v. Bakersfield Convention Hotel I, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER STROJNIK, SR., No. 1:19-cv-1098-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BAKERSFIELD CONVENTION HOTEL I, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LLC, DISMISS AND DISMISSING THE 15 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR Defendant. LACK OF JURISDICTION 16 (Doc. Nos. 21, 39) 17 18 19 Peter Strojnik, Sr., asserts he is a person with a disability within the meaning of the 20 Americans with Disabilities Act and that he encountered barriers at the Bakersfield Marriot Hotel. 21 (See Doc. No. 20) Defendant moved for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 22 21.) The magistrate judge determined plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to support a 23 conclusion that he suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the alleged barriers due to his asserted 24 disabilities, and that he failed to establish standing under Article III. Therefore, the magistrate 25 judge recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction on 26 January 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 39.) 27 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations. (Doc. 28 No. 39 at 15.) In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. (/d. at 15-16, citing 2 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th 3 | Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed by either party. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 5 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of 6 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations 7 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations dated January 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 39) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is granted; 11 3. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of 12 jurisdiction; and 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes 14 of closing the matter and close this case, because this order terminates the action in 15 its entirety. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - "7 Dated: _ February 19, 2021 L yt 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28