FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRENDA LAREE GILBERT 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TYLER HEAD; OREGON MEDICAL 

GROUP; WELLS FARGO BANK; 

CAROLYN PERRY; JANET PERRY, 

 Defendants. 

6:15-cv-00432-TC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint pro se alleging jurisdiction under the Americans With 

Disabilities Act. By order [ECF No. 9] entered on April 15, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed for failure to meet the minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff was advised of the deficiencies of the complaint and allowed 30 days to file 

an amended pleading. 

 On May 28, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint [ECF No. 21]. However, 

plaintiff’s amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies that led to the dismissal of 

plaintiff’s previous complaint. 

Case 6:15-cv-00432-TC Document 24 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 2 

 In short, plaintiff does not allege any facts that would support the alleged jurisdictional 

basis – “federal question . . . civil rights for a person with a disability” [ECF No. 21 at 3]. In 

addition, as with plaintiff’s previous pleading, she has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim 

or to enable the defendants to respond. Plaintiff’s claims apparently involve a real estate 

transaction that soured. Beyond that, it is impossible to even ascertain the nature of plaintiff’s 

claims or what the named defendants allegedly did that violated plaintiff’s rights. 

 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s amended complaint [ECF No. 21] should be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Because it is apparent that the deficiencies of 

the complaints cannot be cured by amendment, the dismissal should be with prejudice. 

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation [ECF No. 11], Application for CM/ECF Registration 

[ECF No. 16] and Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 23] should be denied as moot. 

The Clerk of Court should be directed to enter a judgment dismissing this proceeding with 

prejudice. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment or appealable 

order. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the 

parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to 

timely file objections to any factual determinations of the magistrate judge will be considered a 

waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a 

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

Case 6:15-cv-00432-TC Document 24 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 3 

Any appeal from an order adopting this findings and recommendation or judgment 

dismissing this case would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Therefore, plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status should be revoked. 

 Dated this 12th day of June 2015. 

 s/Thomas M. Coffin 

 THOMAS M. COFFIN 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00432-TC Document 24 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 3