Ward v. American Medical Response Ambulance et al
Filing
12
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen adopting Report and Recommendations as to 10 Report and Recommendations and Dismissing Case in its Entirety. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ANJALI WARD,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
11
v.
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
AMBULANCE, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 23-cv-05402-EMC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY
Docket No. 10
12
13
Presently pending before this Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate
14
Judge Cisneros to dismiss this case in its entirety for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
15
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal
16
Rule 41(b). This Court reviews dispositive recommendations de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §
17
636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
18
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74
19
(1980) (ruling that “certain ‘dispositive’ motions…are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B),” which includes
20
dismissal of an action, and “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination” as to the
21
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations when the motion is dispositive and a
22
party has filed an objection) (emphasis in original). The Court ADOPTS Judge Cisneros’s report
23
and recommendation in full and ORDERS this case to be dismissed in its entirety.
24
On November 16, 2023, Judge Cisneros reviewed Plaintiff Anjali Ward’s application to
25
proceed in forma pauperis, and thus screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
26
1915(e)(2)(B). Docket No. 6. Judge Cisneros correctly determined that Ms. Ward failed to state a
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
claim as to ten individual Defendants1; she did not allege facts or claims as to those Defendants.
2
See Docket No. 1 (Complaint); Docket No. 6.
3
Judge Cisneros ordered Ms. Ward to file an amended complaint by January 2, 2024.
4
Docket No. 6. Judge Cisneros also set a case management conference and corresponding deadline
5
for a status report to be filed by February 15, 2022. Docket No. 7. Ms. Ward did not file an
6
amended complaint or a status report. On February 16, 2024, Judge Cisneros issued an Order to
7
Show Cause Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed and Resetting Initial Case Management
8
Conference (“OSC”). Docket No. 9. The OSC ordered Ms. Ward to show cause why the action
9
should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute and to indicate if she intended to
10
proceed with the Complaint without amending as to the ten individual Defendants. Id. The
11
deadline to respond was March 1, 2024. Id. Ms. Ward failed to respond to the OSC and has not
12
filed anything on the docket since that time. The instant report and recommendation was filed on
13
April 17, 2024. Docket No. 10. Any objection by Ms. Ward was to be filed by May 1, 2024. Id.
14
Ms. Ward has not filed an objection though the deadline passed a week ago.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the case should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28
15
16
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) regarding claims against the ten enumerated individual Defendants
17
identified during the IFP screening, and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 41(b) as
18
to the entire action.
This order disposes of Docket No. 10 and dismisses the case in its entirety. The Clerk of
19
20
Court is directed to close the case.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: May 8, 2024
24
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
1
Specifically, Defendants Jonathan Downie, Greg Sawyer, Chau Nguyen, Kim Yang, Andrew
Rozner, Dave Manzeck, Marco Paez, Jonathan Daniels, Ryan Lipkin, and Mary FitzSimons.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?