Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00570/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00570-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Chew
Defendant
Peggy Lopez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

PEGGY LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN CHEW,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-00570-DAD-CKD (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 5)

Plaintiff Peggy Lopez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action 

on February 23, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

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

On June 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge dismissed the operative complaint and 

granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of that order. (Doc. No. 3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had 

made only conclusory allegations of defendant’s conduct which were insufficient to state a 

cognizable claim for medical malpractice, medical battery, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, or elder abuse under California Elder Abuse Act, California Welfare & Institutions Code 

§§ 15600, et seq. (Id. at 4–6.) Plaintiff did not filed an amended complaint within the proscribed 

time and therefore, on August 19, 2024, the magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to 

show cause in writing why her failure to file an amended complaint should not result in a 

Case 2:24-cv-00570-DAD-CKD Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 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

recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Doc. No. 4 at 1.) To date, plaintiff has neither 

responded to that order to show cause nor filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, on September 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in its entirety due to 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 5 at 

1–2.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. 

(Id. at 2.) To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections to those findings and recommendations 

and the time in which to do so has passed.

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 5) are 

adopted in full;

2. The operative complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without further leave to amend; 

and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00570-DAD-CKD Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2