Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01168/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01168-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

GREG GALLEGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUNNION LAW FIRM,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01168-LJO-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

(ECF Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12)

Plaintiff, Greg Gallegos, is proceeding pro se in this action. The matter was referred to a 

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

On September 23, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without 

leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id.) 

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Certificate of Service #11504.”

(ECF No. 7.) Although the document did not indicate that it was intended to be objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, out of an abundance of caution, the Court 

construed the document as objections and gave those objections full consideration. On November 

Case 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 3
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

7, 2019, after conducting a de novo review of the case, including Plaintiff’s filing, the Court

entered an order adopting the findings and recommendations; dismissing the action, without 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and directing the clerk of the court to close the 

case. (ECF No. 8.)

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed another document titled “Certificate of Service

11504.” (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff indicated in this filing that his previous filing of September 23, 

2019, was not intended to be an objection, but was instead only a notice to the Court that Plaintiff 

had a heart attack and that this entitled him to increased damages. (See id.) Plaintiff also 

contended in this filing that “no one ever gave any 21 day to reply, that was later only in L. 

ONeill letter of 11-6-2019. . . .” (Id.) The Court construed this language as indicating that 

Plaintiff was not given timely notice that he had twenty-one days to file objections to the findings 

and recommendations. The Court also assumed that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the 

findings and recommendations, which contains notice that Plaintiff had twenty-one days to file 

objections. (See ECF No. 6.) Based these assumptions and Plaintiff’s representations, the Court

entered an order on December 2, 2019, that vacated the November 7, 2019, order adopting the 

findings and recommendations; provided Plaintiff with a copy of the findings and 

recommendations; and provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file, with twenty-one days, 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 11.)

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed another document titled “Certificate of Service 

#11504.” (ECF No. 12.) It is unclear whether this document is intended by Plaintiff to be his 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

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

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

filings titled “Certificate of Service #11504” (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 12), the Court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations entered September 23, 2019 (ECF No. 6) are 

ADOPTED in full;

Case 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice and without leave to amend, based 

on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01168-NONE-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 3