(PS) Pandos v. Unknown

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRENDA PANDOS, Case No. 2:23-cv-2111-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN AND JANE DOES, 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint together with a motion to seal.

18 ECF Nos. 1 & 2. On November 12, 2024, I denied that request due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 141, which governs sealing. ECF No. 2. I granted plaintiff fourteen days to file a proper request to seal her complaint that complies with the court’s local rules. Id. Plaintiff was admonished that should she fail to timely file a renewed request to seal, I would recommend that the complaint be stricken and the Clerk of Court be directed to return the complaint. Id.; see E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(e)(1) (“If a Request is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been denied.”).

25 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an appropriate motion to file her complaint under seal or otherwise responded to the prior order.

1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. The complaint, ECF No. 1, be stricken.

3 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to return the complaint to plaintiff, see E.D. Cal. L.R. | 141¢e)(1), and to close the case.

5 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 of | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 13 1991).

1s IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 | q Sty — Dated: _ January 17, 2025 q——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE