(PS) Hawk v. Flix North America, Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00049 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 05/17/23 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations in full, DENYING AS MOOT 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Hawk v. Flix North America, Inc et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:23–cv–00049–KJM CKD PS SHAWN HAWK, ORDER v. FLIX NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 17 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c). On April 4, 2023, the magistrate judge 19 recommended this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. 20 Plaintiff objected. ECF No. 4. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 22 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 23 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 24 Plaintiff’s allegations about a bus ticket refund and a canceled quarter-million-dollar meeting do 25 not support a claim to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Nietzke v. Williams, 26 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974). He may be able to 27 pursue relief in another more appropriate venue. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The April 4, 2023 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT; 4 3. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 5 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 6 DATED: May 17, 2023. 7 8 9 10 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.
