(PS) Williams v. State of CA Workers Compensation Appeals Board ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-00302 KJM AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD and THE 15 HOME DEPOT, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On November 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 24. Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Although plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, 2 || the notice does not mention what she is appealing in this case. See ECF No. 26. Thus, this 3 || appeal is frivolous, and the court retains jurisdiction of plaintiff's case under Chuman v. Wright, 4 | 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). See 20 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 303.32 (2022) □□□□□ 5 || district judge who concludes that an appeal is clearly frivolous may ignore the notice of appeal 6 || and proceed with the case as if the appeal had not been taken. To hold otherwise would enable a 7 || party to manipulate the court with dilatory tactics.”). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2022, ECF No. 24, are adopted 10 | in full; 1] 2. Home Depot’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED; 12 3. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of proper 13 || service; and 14 4. This case is CLOSED. 15 || DATED: January 17, 2023. 16 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28