(PS) Parker v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. 2:2020cv01160 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/21 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
(PS) Parker v. J.P. Morgan Chase Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKIKA PARKER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-1160-JAM-CKD PS v. ORDER J.P. MORGAN CHASE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 25, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. No objections were 20 filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 21 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full.1 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 7 8 9 DATED: April 26, 2021 10 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court notes that, by coincidence, plaintiff’s earlier-filed case No. 2:20-cv-0455-KJM-CKD (referred to by the magistrate judge as Parker I) was dismissed by the assigned Chief District Judge in an order filed moments after the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were issued in this case. Thus, the complaint in this suit no longer duplicates an ongoing suit in this court. However, the magistrate judge’s reasoning still applies with equal force because this suit now duplicates a prior suit that has been dismissed by final judgment. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (res judicata applies when an earlier suit “(1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies”; discussing the same four criteria for evaluating whether cases involve same claim or cause of action that apply when considering duplicative cases ongoing in same court). 2