Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01564/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01564-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY A. NELSON ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL J. ENJALRAN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD

ORDER

Mary A. Nelson Rogers (“Plaintiff”), and individual proceeding pro se, brings this civil 

complaint pursuant to: 26 U.S.C. § 7433; 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401–04; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d–f; 18 

U.S.C. § 1702; 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103, 7431; 28 U.S.C. § 1346; and 31 U.S.C. § 1304. 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 March 18, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 43.) No objections were 

filed.

///

///

///

Case 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD Document 60 Filed 06/16/20 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

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

On the same day the Findings and Recommendations were filed, Plaintiff filed a Motion 

to Amend. (ECF No. 44.) This motion does not address any of the deficiencies outlined in the 

Findings and Recommendations and indeed, while labeled a “Motion to Amend,” it appears to be 

an additional opposition to the motions to dismiss addressed in the Findings and 

Recommendations and by the present Order. As such, the Motion to Amend is DENIED.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 18, 2020 (ECF No. 43), are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 25, 28, 29, 30) are GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED against the United States, but with leave to 

amend.

4. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED against the remaining named defendants without 

leave to amend and with prejudice.

5. Plaintiff’s previously filed Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint (ECF 

No. 33) is DENIED and the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 34) is therefore 

STRICKEN.

6. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 44) is DENIED.

7. The Fourth Amended Complaint is STRICKEN as improper.

8. The remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, 52, and 53) are DENIED as moot.

6. Within 21 days of this order Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against the 

United States addressing the deficiencies outlined in the Findings and Recommendations. 

For clarity, this complaint shall be captioned “Fifth Amended Complaint” and the 

Case 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD Document 60 Filed 06/16/20 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

amendments are limited to those outlined by the Findings and Recommendations (ECF 

No. 43). Should Plaintiff want to further amend her complaint, she must file a properly 

noticed motion to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD Document 60 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 3