(PS)Cakarcan-Sbabo v. U.S. Department of Education ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAMZE CAKARCAN-SBABO, No. 2:22-CV-0236-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 19 Court are Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 8 and 16. 20 In its motion, Defendant Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (Great 21 Lakes), argues: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; 22 (2) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not create a private right of 23 action; (3) the Tenth Amendment dos not provide a cause of action against a private entity; and 24 (4) Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the “Education Act of 1996: because there is no such law. 25 See ECF No. 8. Defendant Great Lakes seeks dismissal of the complaint in its entirety with 26 prejudice. See id. In its separate motion to dismiss, Defendant United States Department of 27 Education (DOE) raises the same arguments. See ECF No. 16. Defendant DOE also seeks 28 dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. See id. ] Defendant Great Lakes’ motion was originally noticed for hearing on April 27, 2 | 2022. Upon Plaintiff's failure to file any opposition to the motion, the Court vacated the hearing 3 || and took the matter under submission without oral argument. See ECF No. 10. Defendant 4 | DOE’s motion was originally noticed for hearing on August 17, 2022. Again, Plaintiff failed to 5 || file any opposition and the matter was taken off calendar and submitted without oral argument. 6 || See ECF No. 17. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought a continuance, which the Court construed as a 7 || motion for an extension of time and granted. See ECF Nos. 18, 20. Plaintiff was granted 30 days 8 | from September 13, 2022, to file oppositions to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. See 9 || ECF No. 20. To date Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either motion or sought additional 10 || time to do so. 11 Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c), (1), the Court 12 || construes Plaintiff's failure to file oppositions to the pending motions to dismiss as his consent to 13 || the relief requested in the motions. 14 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ unopposed 15 || motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 8, 16, be granted and that this action be dismissed in its entirety 16 | with prejudice. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within 14 days 19 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 20 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 21 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 22 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 || Dated: November 1, 2022 = IS Co 2 DENNIS M. COTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28