LaShonda Bailey v. Homles et al, No. 1:2019cv00767 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice re 1 Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/2/2019. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 LASHONDA BAILEY, as guardian ad litem to S.M., Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-767-DAD-JLT ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. STEVE HOLMES, et al., (Doc. No. 6) Defendant. 16 17 18 LaShonda Bailey, on behalf of her minor daughter, S.M., is proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. No. 1.) The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On July 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff did not 24 respond to the court’s order requiring her to seek appointment of a guardian ad litem to prosecute 25 S.M.’s claims. (Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 6 (citing E.D. Cal. L. R. 202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c))). The 26 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections 27 thereto were due within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. No. 6.) No objections have been filed and the 28 time in which to do so has now passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 3 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed on July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in 6 full; 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.
