1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SAYED MOKARAM, No. 2:24-cv-3009 DC AC (PS) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 SAYED AYUB, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On November 11, 2024, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF 18 No. 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 The undersigned reviewed the complaint and, believing that this court lacks subject matter 20 jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s case, issued an Order to Show Cause directed to plaintiff requiring 21 that he respond and demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff did not file 22 a response. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and the 23 undersigned finds none. 24 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for 25 lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons set forth at ECF No. 4, and that this case be 26 closed. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 3 || document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 || Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 6 || v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 || DATED: November 26, 2024 ° Ctt0 Bas 2. a ee ee 10 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28