(PS) Martinez v. FP Store, Inc., No. 1:2019cv00487 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/31/2020. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELICA MARTINEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FP STORE, INC., 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. 1:19-cv-00487-NONE-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 5) Defendants. Plaintiff Angelica Martinez proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this action against Defendant FP Store, Inc. alleging a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). On September 24, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that it failed to state any cognizable claims. (Doc. No. 4.) The court gave plaintiff permission to (1) file an amended complaint; or (2) notify the court that she wished to stand on her complaint, subject to findings and recommendations to the undersigned consistent with the screening order. The court warned plaintiff that if she failed to respond to the screening order, findings and recommendations would be issued to the undersigned recommending dismissal for failure to obey a court order, failure to state a claim, and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not respond to the screening order within the time limits, so the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s complaint 28 1 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to state a claim, and failure to follow a court order. 2 (Doc. No. 5.) 3 4 5 Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations, but did not do so. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 6 court has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 7 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 5), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 11 2. Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, and failure to state a claim; and 12 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for purposes of closure and then to close this case. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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.
