Marsh v. Bank of Sierra, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE MARSH, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0508 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM WITH 14 BANK OF SIERRA, INC., et al., ) PREJUDICE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 14) ) 16 ) 17 Terrance Marsh, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action against 18 Defendants Bank of Sierra, Inc., Margaret Droese, and Karen Mitchell on April 29, 2022. (Doc. 1.) 19 On January 3, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s Second 20 Amended Complaint and found Plaintiff “states a potentially cognizable Section 1981 claim,” but 21 failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 14 at 8; see also id. at 6-8.) 22 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 23 be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 8.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on January 3, 2023, and notified 25 Plaintiff that any objections must be filed within 21 days of the date of service. (Doc. 14 at 8.) In the 26 alternative, the Court informed Plaintiff that he “may choose to stand on his second amended 27 complaint and proceed only on his Section 1981 claim,” in which case Plaintiff was directed to notify 28 the Court in writing that he wanted to proceed in that manner. (Id.) The Court also informed Plaintiff 1 || the failure to file timely objections “may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 9, citing 2 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9t 3 || Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and 4 || Recommendations, and the deadline to do so has expired. 5 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 6 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the Findings 7 || and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 3, 2023 (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED 9 in full. 10 2. Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is DISMISSED with 11 prejudice. 12 3. The action SHALL proceed only upon Plaintiffs claim for discrimination arising 13 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 14 4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ February 6, 2023 ( Pui | Wy mn 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28