Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05153/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05153-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VELMA ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY MABUS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05153-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS; ORDER 

REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Dkt. No. 6

On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff Velma Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed this case 

against Defendant Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, for workplace injuries sustained during her 

employment between 1980 and 1986. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) On January 21, 2015, 

Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are

not only time-barred, but that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s failure 

to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 6 at 2.)

On March 3, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff’s case should not 

be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and ordered Plaintiff to file either an opposition to the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings or a statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than 

March 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff was advised that her failure to timely file both documents 

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Id. The Court continued the 

motion hearing to April 16, 2015, in order to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to reply to the 

OSC and file an opposition to the pending motion. Id.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC nor has she filed an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 

Case 3:14-cv-05153-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Since Plaintiff has not consented to the undersigned, the April 16, 2015 hearing on the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings is VACATED, and the Court reassigns this action to a 

district judge with the recommendation that Defendant’s motion be granted as unopposed and that 

the case be dismissed with prejudice. Specifically, based on the face of the complaint, it appears 

that Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff’s allegations are time-barred is correct because Plaintiff’s 

alleged injuries were sustained more than twenty years ago.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the District Judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The 

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

appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-

5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: April 7, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05153-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2