Ireland v. Discover Employees, No. 1:2020cv00903 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/21/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME IRELAND, JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00903-NONE-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM v. DISCOVER EMPLOYEES, (Doc. No. 5) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Jerome Ireland, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action alleging fraud against Discover 18 Employees (“Defendant”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations 21 recommending dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction and due to plaintiff’s failure to 22 state a claim. The findings and recommendations was served on plaintiff. On July 6, 2020, 23 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s 27 complaint attempts to assert various claims against “Discover Employees.” (Doc. No. 1.) 28 According to plaintiff, those employees are refusing to acknowledge that plaintiff “has been 1 1 approved for a one hundred billion dollar credit line increase on his Discover card.” (Id. at 6.) 2 The magistrate judge correctly concluded that plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable 3 claim under federal law or credibly allege the pre-requisites of diversity jurisdiction, among 4 other defects. The court likewise agrees with the conclusion reached in the pending findings and 5 recommendations that amendment would be futile. Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the 6 identified defects and do not provide any reason for the court to believe that granting leave to 7 amend could possibly result in the curing of those defects. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 11 2. 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to reassign this action to a district judge for the purposes of closing this action; and 14 15 The complaint in this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; 12 13 The findings and recommendations, filed July 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 4), are 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: July 21, 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.