Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01288-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Dyer
Defendant
Maraget Mims
Defendant
Candace Smith
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DYER and MARAGET MIMS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01288 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

DISMISSING THE ACTION, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THE CASE

(Doc. 4)

Candace Smith seeks to hold Jerry Dyer and Maraget Mims1liable for several criminal 

acts including—but not limited to—stalking, harassment, attempted murder, and “using power 

[and] influence to get sex,” invasion of privacy, and hacking. (See Doc. 1 at 5.) Because Plaintiff 

is proceeding in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 4.) 

The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.” 

(Doc. 4 at 7; see also id. at 3-7.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined “Plaintiff should 

not be granted leave to file an amended complaint in light of both Plaintiff’s extensive history 

with deficient filings in this District and the apparent futility in doing so.” (Id.) Therefore, the 

1 Plaintiff refers to Ms. Mims as “Maraget,” “Maragret” and “Margret.” (Doc. 1 at 1, 2, 5.) For the sake of 

consistency, the Courts simply adopts the spelling in the caption of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Case 1:24-cv-01288-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/08/25 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

magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss this action “without prejudice and without leave 

to amend.” (Id.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that 

any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 4 at 7.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 

objections, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 26, 2024 (Doc. 4) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend and without 

prejudice.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01288-JLT-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 2