Collins et al v. Walgreen Co., No. 1:2012cv01780 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 5 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/13/12. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Collins et al v. Walgreen Co. Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNN COLLINS, on behalf of patients of Dr. Terrill E. Brown, M.D., MPH, CASE NO. 1:12-cv-1780 AWI- BAM 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. 14 WALGREEN CO., et al., (Doc. Nos. 3, 5) 15 Defendants. 16 ____________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff Lynn Collins, et. al, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is 18 proceeding pro se in this civil action, having filed a complaint on October 19, 2012. (Doc. 1). On 19 November 21, 2012, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending that Plaintiff complete and submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, 21 or in the alternative, pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 5). The Findings and 22 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the Findings 23 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days of service of the Order. (Doc. 5). On 24 December 6, 2012, without objection, Plaintiff paid the $350.00 filing fee. (Receipt No. 25 CAE100020838). 26 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636 (b)(1)(c), 27 this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Additionally, there are concerns with Plaintiff’s complaint, including whether valid causes 3 of action have been stated. The Court may raise issues such as jurisdiction and whether a complaint 4 states a claim sua sponte. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 5 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1981) (failure to 6 state a claim). When reviewing a complaint sua sponte, the Court must dismiss a complaint or 7 portion thereof if the litigant has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to 8 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant(s) who 9 is immune from such relief. Prior to the issuance of any summonses, the Court will refer the 10 complaint to the Magistrate Judge to issue findings and Recommendations regarding whether the 11 complaint states valid causes of action for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12 12(b)(6). Plaintiff is advised that the Magistrate Judge has a large number of such cases pending 13 before it and the Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. 16 17 IN FULL; 2. 18 19 The Findings and Recommendations dated November 21, 2012, are ADOPTED Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED due the payment of the filing fee by Plaintiff; and 3. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of screening the 20 complaint to determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and 21 whether the complaint states valid and properly pled causes of action. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: 0m8i78 December 13, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
