Stephens v. Vaughey et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen adopting 9 Report and Recommendation; and Dismissing Case. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)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

DEAN P. STEPHENS,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
PETER BARREN VAUGHEY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 24-cv-08605-EMC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION; AND
DISMISSING CASE
Docket No. 9

12
13
14

Plaintiff Dean P. Stephens, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against four individuals:

15

Michael McCabe, PhD; Peter B. Vaughey, M.D.; Anne M. Chestnut, RN; and Maxine

16

Medowbrook, NP.

17

The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Spero. Judge Spero granted Mr.

18

Stephens’s application to proceed in forma paupers (“IFP”) but ordered Mr. Stephens to show

19

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

20

Docket No. 6 (Order at 3-4) (stating there is an insufficient showing of diversity jurisdiction

21

because Mr. Stephens failed to allege the citizenship of each defendant; also there is an

22

insufficient showing of federal question jurisdiction because no federal claim is pled in the

23

complaint – indeed, there are no “specific facts that relate to the conduct of the named defendants

24

such that a federal claim might be gleaned from Plaintiff’s scant and cryptic allegations”). Judge

25

Spero indicated that Mr. Stephens could respond to the order to show cause by filing an amended

26

complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. Judge Spero also explained to Mr.

27

Stephens that, if he did not file a response to the order to show cause by February 10, 2025, the

28

case would be “reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be

1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” Docket No. 6 (Order at 4).
Mr. Stephens failed to file a response to Judge Spero’s order to show cause. Accordingly,

3

Judge Spero issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Mr. Stephens’

4

case be dismissed for the reasons stated in the prior order to show cause. Judge Spero noted that

5

Mr. Stephens could file an objection to the R&R within two weeks of the date on which he

6

received the R&R. See Docket No. 9 (R&R).

7

The R&R was mailed to Mr. Stephens on February 18, 2025. No objection has since been

8

received by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified

9

time after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail), (D) (leaving with the

10

clerk), or (F) (other means consented to), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire

11

under Rule 6(a).”).

12

The Court has reviewed Judge Spero’s R&R, which essentially incorporates by reference

13

the order to show cause. The Court finds the R&R correct, well reasoned, and thorough and

14

therefore ADOPTS it in every respect. Mr. Stephens’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject

15

matter jurisdiction.

16
17

The Court orders the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment in accordance with this
order and close the file in the case.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: March 12, 2025

22
23
24

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2