Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01192-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-01192-DAD-AC (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. Nos. 10, 18)

Plaintiff Christopher Smith, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on January 30, 

2024 in the Sacramento County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1 at 12.) On April 24, 2024, 

defendant Home Depot removed this action to this court. (Doc. No. 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 October 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) be granted and that plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint be dismissed, with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 18.) In particular, the 

magistrate judge found that the first amended complaint contained no factual allegations and 

therefore did not state a cognizable claim under Title VII for racial or gender discrimination. (Id. 

at 5.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Doc. No. 18.) 

To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time 

Case 2:24-cv-01192-DAD-AC Document 20 Filed 12/04/24 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

in which to do so has now passed. However, plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, 

which the court construes as his amendment to the first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 19.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections and defendant’s response thereto, the court concludes that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2024 (Doc. No. 18) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 6) is dismissed with leave to amend. 

4. The court accepts plaintiff’s already-filed second amended complaint (Doc. No. 

19) as the operative complaint;

5. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s second amended complaint no later than 

twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry of this order; and

6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01192-DAD-AC Document 20 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 2