Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00028/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00028-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN L. RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

No. CIV S-11-0028 GEB GGH PS

FEDEX - FEDERAL EXPRESS

CORPORATION,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On September 21, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Objections were filed

on October 5, 2012, a reply was filed on October 15, 2012.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The portion of the September 21, 2012 findings and recommendations finding that

Defendant’s dismissal motion has merit is adopted since Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts

1

Case 2:11-cv-00028-GEB-DAD Document 53 Filed 11/27/12 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

showing she had a cognizable disability or that she is a qualified individual who could perform

the essential functions of her job; did not allege facts to support the existence of an employment

contract between her and Defendant; and failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible

negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. 

Therefore, Defendant’s dismissal motion filed on March 21, 2012 (ECF 34) is

granted. However, Plaintiff is granted leave until December 14, 2012, to file a First-Amended

Complaint addressing the deficiencies in her Complaint raised in Defendant’s dismissal motion.

Further, Plaintiff is warned that this lawsuit may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to file a First-Amended Complaint on or before

December 14, 2012.

Dated: November 26, 2012

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 2:11-cv-00028-GEB-DAD Document 53 Filed 11/27/12 Page 2 of 2