(PS) Parker v. J.P. Morgan Chase

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/21 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AKIKA PARKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:20-cv-1160-JAM-CKD PS

v.

ORDER

J.P. MORGAN CHASE,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On March 25, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF

18

No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the

19

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. No objections were

20

filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

21

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

22

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

23

1983).

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

2

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full.1 Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

5

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

6

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

7
8
9

DATED: April 26, 2021

10

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that, by coincidence, plaintiff’s earlier-filed case No. 2:20-cv-0455-KJM-CKD
(referred to by the magistrate judge as Parker I) was dismissed by the assigned Chief District
Judge in an order filed moments after the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were
issued in this case. Thus, the complaint in this suit no longer duplicates an ongoing suit in this
court. However, the magistrate judge’s reasoning still applies with equal force because this suit
now duplicates a prior suit that has been dismissed by final judgment. See Mpoyo v. Litton
Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (res judicata applies when an earlier suit
“(1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on
the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies”; discussing the same four criteria for
evaluating whether cases involve same claim or cause of action that apply when considering
duplicative cases ongoing in same court).
2