Ford v. Kern High School District ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OTHA FORD, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0159 JLT BAK (SAB) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) (Doc. 9) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Otha Ford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action asserting she suffered 18 “9 years of medical negligence;” discrimination, harassment, and prejudice in the workplace; 19 negligence; and denial of a worker’s compensation claim. (See Doc. 1 at 4-6.) 20 The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and determined Plaintiff failed to state a 21 cognizable claim. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which the magistrate judge 22 determined did not include a cognizable claim and dismissed with leave to amend. (Docs. 6, 7.) 23 Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the Kern High School District was “defaming 24 [her] name.” (Doc. 8 at 2.) Plaintiff also alleged she suffered “discrimination at the work place / 25 harassment” and that her “Federal Rights” were violated. (Id. at 3, emphasis omitted.) The magistrate 26 judge reviewed the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and found Plaintiff failed to state a 27 cognizable claim. (Doc. 9 at 3-6.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff “repeatedly failed to 28 cure” the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior screening orders. (Id. at 4.) Thus, the 1 || magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed on May 6, 2022. (/d. at 6-7.) 2 The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations o 3 || the magistrate judge. (Doc. 9 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff “that failure to file objections within 4 || the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 77: 5 || F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).). To date, she 6 || had not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 8 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 9 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 6, 2022 (Doc. 9), are ADOPTED 11 in full. 12 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ May 25, 2022 ( LAW pA L. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28