1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TERRANCE TURNER, Case No. 22-cv-07490-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 10 PATRICE & ASSOCIATES, et al., COMPLAINT 11 Defendants. Docket No. 17

12 13 Plaintiff Terrance Turner represents himself in forma pauperis. He has sued the 14 employment recruiter Patrice & Associates, various companies and their CEOs, and the FBI for 15 alleged breach of contract and fraud because he is unable to get a job. After the Court ordered Mr. 16 Turner to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and 17 lack of venue, Mr. Turner filed an amended complaint against only Patrice & Associates. Docket 18 No. 15 (Amended Complaint). 19 On July 3, 2023, Magistrate Judge Beeler filed her report and recommendation to dismiss 20 the amended complaint. Docket No. 17 (Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)). Objections are 21 due fourteen days after a party is served with a copy of the recommendation. Mr. Turner did not 22 file any objections by the deadline of July 17, 2023. The case was then reassigned to the 23 undersigned, as magistrate-judge jurisdiction is only permissible with the appearance and consent 24 of all parties. See Williams v. King,

, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017). 25 This Court adopts Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation and dismisses Mr. Turner’s 26 amended complaint. District courts review proposed findings and recommendations of magistrate 27 judges de novo. See

(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 1 This Court has reviewed the amended complaint and determined that it fails to set forth a pleading 2 that plausibly states a claim for relief under Rule 8(a). See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a). The amended 3 complaint includes only general allegations levelled against Patrice & Associates, such as “fraud, 4 conspiracy, theft, larceny, bodily harm, wire-fraud, conspiracy to form conspiracy, and conspiracy 5 to defraud The United States of America, and conspiracy to defraud The Government of The 6 United States of America.” Amended Complaint at 2. Mr. Turner alleges tortious interference 7 through a “bad faith . . . business scheme,”

breach of contract in their inability “to perform job 8 duties,”

, negligence in failing to “fill corporate jobs” causing the economy to be “down, 9 bad, and in a state of disrepair,”

, promissory estoppel violations by “promis[ing] plentiful 10 representation” of jobs,

, lack of competency because the recruiters are “functionally 11 illiterate,”

, and misrepresentation through “zero practical occupational experience [and] 12 limited perception-evolution philosophical-psychological development,”

, among others. 13 The amended complaint also contains a significant amount of ranting and swearing. 14 As Judge Beeler explains, “[t]he amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies: it is 15 again a generalized rant, has many fanciful allegations, and does not provide ‘a short and plain 16 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The 17 complaint levels general criticisms at Patrice & Associates without coherently explaining the 18 factual basis of any harm that Patrice & Associates may have caused the plaintiff (other than that 19 the plaintiff did not get a job). Thus, the complaint is not minimally viable, and the case must be 20 dismissed.” R&R at 2. This Court agrees. 21 The Court thus ADOPTS Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation and DISMISSES 22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. 23 This order disposes of Docket No. 17. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: August 8, 2023 27 ______________________________________