Ford v. Kern High School District et al, No. 1:2022cv00159 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing the Action without Prejudice, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/25/2022. CASE CLOSED.(Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OTHA FORD, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0159 JLT BAK (SAB) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 9) Otha Ford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action asserting she suffered 18 “9 years of medical negligence;” discrimination, harassment, and prejudice in the workplace; 19 negligence; and denial of a worker’s compensation claim. (See Doc. 1 at 4-6.) 20 The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and determined Plaintiff failed to state a 21 cognizable claim. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which the magistrate judge 22 determined did not include a cognizable claim and dismissed with leave to amend. (Docs. 6, 7.) 23 Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting the Kern High School District was “defaming 24 [her] name.” (Doc. 8 at 2.) Plaintiff also alleged she suffered “discrimination at the work place / 25 harassment” and that her “Federal Rights” were violated. (Id. at 3, emphasis omitted.) The magistrate 26 judge reviewed the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and found Plaintiff failed to state a 27 cognizable claim. (Doc. 9 at 3-6.) The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff “repeatedly failed to 28 cure” the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior screening orders. (Id. at 4.) Thus, the 1 1 2 magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed on May 6, 2022. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations of 3 the magistrate judge. (Doc. 9 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff “that failure to file objections within 4 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 5 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).). To date, she 6 had not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 8 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 9 are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 6, 2022 (Doc. 9), are ADOPTED in full. 11 12 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 25, 2022 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.
