(PS) Tapia v. The Boeing Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO TAPIA, No. 2:20-cv-02218-TLN-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THE BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(3). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In his complaint filed on November 5, 2020, plaintiff alleges he was discriminated and retaliated against by his former employer, defendant The Boeing Company, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 21 1981. (ECF No. 1.)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), defendant moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim, among other requested relief. (ECF No. 5.) By order dated March 12, 2021, the undersigned granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time granted for plaintiff to file an amended complaint has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and

2. The Clerk’s office be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 11, 2021 eA ty / Ei Cand pe Kl. Ages

CAROLYNK.DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8.Tapia.2218.Fta