Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00880/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00880-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATACHIANNA JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00880-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER

VACATING THE JUNE 13, 2024 HEARING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF PROSECUTION, FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL 

RULES 

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Defendant U.S. Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently set for hearing 

on June 13, 2024. ECF Nos. 5 & 11. After plaintiff failed to timely respond to that motion, I 

continued the hearing on defendant’s motion and ordered plaintiff to show cause why sanctions 

should not be imposed for her failure to comply with the court’s local rules. ECF No. 9. I also 

ordered plaintiff file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion by no 

later than May 16, 2024. Id. I warned plaintiff that failure to comply with that order could result 

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with 

court orders, and failure to comply with local rules. Id. 

Case 2:24-cv-00880-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 05/29/24 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

The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has neither filed an opposition to defendant’s 

motion nor otherwise responded to the April 30, 2024 order.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the June 13, 2024 hearing on defendant’s 

motion to dismiss is vacated.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the court’s 

local rules, and failure to comply with court orders. 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, be denied as moot.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00880-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2