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

11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0422 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 FARMERS INSURANCE, et al., ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 4) ) 16

17 Candace Smith seeks to hold several the defendants—including Farmers Insurance and several 18 individuals—liable for unspecified claims. (See generally Doc. 1.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in 19 forma pauperis, the magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

(e)(2). 20 (Doc. 4.) 21 The magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff indicated the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction was 22 “federal question,” but “Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or 23 treaties of the United States upon which relief in this civil action may be premised.” (Doc. 4 at 4.) The 24 magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff also does not cite or otherwise reference any federal laws to 25 establish federal question jurisdiction.” (Id.) To the extent the complaint suggests fraudulent actions 26 may have occurred by the defendants having “friends…commit fraudlent (sic) acts”, the magistrate 27 judge found no basis for federal question jurisdiction. (Id.) Moreover, the magistrate judge found 28 Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 || Procedure because Plaintiff did not identify “what happened, when and where the events happened, o 2 || who was involved.” (/d. at 3.) Because Plaintiff has repeatedly been advised of the pleading and 3 || jurisdictional requirements and failed to satisfy the pleading obligations, the magistrate judge found 4 || leave to amend would be futile. (/d. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal 5 || without prejudice and without leave to amend. (/d. at 5.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 7 || objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 4 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to fil 8 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’ 9 || factual findings’ on appeal.” Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 10 || 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 13 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 21, 2025 (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED in 15 full. 16 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 17 3. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile. 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |! Dated: _May 8, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28