1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1: 24-cv-0538 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, DISMISSING 13 v. ) THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 MERCY AYODALE, et al., ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 11) ) 16 )

17 Candace Smith alleges the defendants are “special agents from the country of Nigeria” are are 18 liable to her for violations of federal and state criminal acts. (See Doc. 9 at 1, 3-5.) The magistrate 19 judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to

(e)(2), and found Plaintiff 20 failed to allege facts sufficient to support a conclusion that the Court has jurisdiction over her claims. 21 (Doc. 11 at 3-6.) The magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff’s allegations rise to the level of the 22 irrational or wholly incredible.” (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge determined the amended complaint 23 “is frivolous, lacking an arguable basis in fact, and does not state a plausible claim for relief.” (Id. at 24 7.) Based upon these findings, the magistrate judge recommended “this action be dismissed with 25 prejudice.” (Id.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 27 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 7.) The Court advised her that the “failure to file 28 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate 1 judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th 2 |) Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that the district court lacks 5 || jurisdiction over the claims is supported by the record and proper analysis. Likewise, the Court agree 6 || the amended complaint appears frivolous. However, based upon the initial finding that the Court lac] 7 || jurisdiction, the Court finds dismissal without prejudice is proper. See Kelly vy. Fleetwood Enters., 8 || Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (“because the district court lacked subject matter 9 || jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without prejudice”); Anrig v. Ringsby United, 60: 10 || F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir. 1978) (indicating dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction should be 11 || without prejudice). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 19, 2024 (Doc. 11) are adopted in part 13 2. The action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 8, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28