1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANJALI WARD, Case No. 23-cv-05402-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY 10 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE, et al., 11 Docket No. 10 Defendants. 12 13 Presently pending before this Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate 14 Judge Cisneros to dismiss this case in its entirety for failure to state a claim on which relief may be 15 granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal 16 Rule 41(b). This Court reviews dispositive recommendations de novo. See

636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); U.S. v. Raddatz,

, 673-74 19 (1980) (ruling that “certain ‘dispositive’ motions…are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B),” which includes 20 dismissal of an action, and “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination” as to the 21 magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations when the motion is dispositive and a 22 party has filed an objection) (emphasis in original). The Court ADOPTS Judge Cisneros’s report 23 and recommendation in full and ORDERS this case to be dismissed in its entirety. 24 On November 16, 2023, Judge Cisneros reviewed Plaintiff Anjali Ward’s application to 25 proceed in forma pauperis, and thus screened the Complaint pursuant to

1915(e)(2)(B). Docket No. 6. Judge Cisneros correctly determined that Ms. Ward failed to state a 27 1 claim as to ten individual Defendants!; she did not allege facts or claims as to those Defendants. 2 See Docket No. 1 (Complaint); Docket No. 6. 3 Judge Cisneros ordered Ms. Ward to file an amended complaint by January 2, 2024. 4 || Docket No. 6. Judge Cisneros also set a case management conference and corresponding deadline 5 for a status report to be filed by February 15, 2022. Docket No. 7. Ms. Ward did not file an 6 amended complaint or a status report. On February 16, 2024, Judge Cisneros issued an Order to 7 Show Cause Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed and Resetting Initial Case Management 8 || Conference (“OSC”). Docket No. 9. The OSC ordered Ms. Ward to show cause why the action 9 should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute and to indicate if she intended to 10 || proceed with the Complaint without amending as to the ten individual Defendants. Jd. The 11 deadline to respond was March 1, 2024.

Ms. Ward failed to respond to the OSC and has not 12 || filed anything on the docket since that time. The instant report and recommendation was filed on 5 13 April 17, 2024. Docket No. 10. Any objection by Ms. Ward was to be filed by May 1, 2024.

14 || Ms. Ward has not filed an objection though the deadline passed a week ago. 3 15 Accordingly, the Court finds that the case should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28

(e)(2)(B)Gi) regarding claims against the ten enumerated individual Defendants 3 17 identified during the IFP screening, and for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 41(b) as 18 to the entire action. 19 This order disposes of Docket No. 10 and dismisses the case in its entirety. The Clerk of 20 || Court is directed to close the case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: May 8, 2024 24 25 EDWARD M. CHEN 26 United States District Judge 27 28 ' Specifically, Defendants Jonathan Downie, Greg Sawyer, Chau Nguyen, Kim Yang, Andrew Rozner, Dave Manzeck, Marco Paez, Jonathan Daniels, Ryan Lipkin, and Mary FitzSimons.