Warfield v. Paladin Security

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/13/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRODERICK WARFIELD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 17-cv-0129 TLN CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PALADIN SECURITY,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff

17
18

alleges claims arising out of an interaction he had with a security guard. The complaint fails to

19

set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

20

By order filed January 26, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than

21

February 7, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

22

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause.1 There being no evident basis for

23

subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of

24
25

subject matter jurisdiction.

26
27
28

1

On February 2, 2017, plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Amended Complaint.”
However, no allegations are set forth in the amended complaint and the document comprises only
the face page of a complaint.
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

6

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

7

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8

Dated: February 13, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12

4 warfield0129.nosmj.57

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2