Smith v. Chick-Fil-A, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL the 6 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING the Action Without Prejudice, and DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Close this Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/6/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CANDACE SMITH,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CHICK-FIL-A, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-1471 JLT HBK
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DIMISSING THE
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
THIS CASE
(Doc. 6)

16
17

Candace Smith seeks to hold several unconnected businesses and individuals liable for

18

violations of her rights. (See generally Doc. 5.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended

19

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B), and found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to

20

invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. 6 at 3-8.) Because the Court previously informed Plaintiff of

21

the applicable pleading and jurisdictional standards, the magistrate judge found further amendment

22

would be futile, and recommended dismissal without leave to amend. (Id. at 8.)

23

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any

24

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 6 at 9.) The Court advised her that the “failure to file

25

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing

26

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The U.S. Postal Service returned the

27

Findings and Recommendations marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Insufficient Address,

28

Unable to Forward” on March 3, 2025. Nevertheless, the service upon Plaintiff is deemed fully
1

1

effective.1 See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each ... pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk

2

and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party.

3

Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be

4

fully effective.”) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having

5
6

carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported

7

by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1.

8

The Findings and Recommendations dated February 13, 2025 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED
in full.

9
10

2.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

11

3.

The action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

12

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

March 6, 2025

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The U.S. Postal Service has returned all documents from the Court in this action, with the first order issued returned on
December 30, 2024. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), Plaintiff was required to provide a notice of change of address within
63 days. To date, she has not done so.

2