Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00586/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00586-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST COAST HOTEL MANAGEMENT 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

Doc. 8

Plaintiff Candace Smith is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action

against Defendants. Doc. 1. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint, 

finding that it failed to establish the Court’s jurisdiction and failed to state a claim. Doc. 7. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to do one of the following by September 9, 

2024: (1) file a first amended complaint, (2) file a notice that she intended to stand on the 

original complaint as screened, or (3) file a notice to voluntarily dismiss the action without 

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Id. at 5–6. The screening order was served on Plaintiff

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 9 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

at her address of record. See docket.

1

 On September 3, 2024, an earlier-mailed filing that was 

served on Plaintiff was returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as 

Addressed, Unable to Forward.” See docket. Plaintiff did not otherwise respond or comply with 

the Court’s screening order instructions, nor did she file an updated address with the Court.

On November 8, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court orders, and failure

to keep her address current. Doc. 8. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff 

and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service. Id. at 5. As 

before, the findings and recommendations were returned on November 25, 2024, as 

“undeliverable, unable to forward.” See docket. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the 

time to do so has passed. Id.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. After carefully reviewing the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations 

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 8, 2024, Doc. 8, are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 Under the Local Rules, “service of documents at the prior address of the . . . pro se party shall 

be fully effective.” L.R. 182(f).

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 9 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2