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

11 MICHELLE SMITH, for S.L.I. III, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0791 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING ) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) (Doc. 8) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16

17 Michelle Smith seeks to proceed with an action challenging the denial of Social Security 18 benefits on behalf of her minor son, S.L.I., III. (Doc. 1.) The Court observed that Ms. Smith is unable 19 to proceed pro se in this matter on behalf of her son and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his claims 20 should not be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 4.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that if counsel 21 entered an appearance, the Court would vacate its order to show cause. (Id. at 2.) 22 After Plaintiff failed to respond to the order—or otherwise communicate with the Court—the 23 magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the matter and failed to comply with the Court’s 24 order. (Doc. 8 at 1, 3.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions are appropriate after 25 considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 26 (9th Cir. 1986). (Id. at 3-5.) The magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action “without 27 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and/or obey a court order.” (Id. at 5.) 28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 1 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 2 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkers 3 || v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to dc 4 || so has passed. 5 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 7 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated September 9, 2025 (Doc. 8) are ADOPTE! 9 in full. 10 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 26, 2025 ( LAW ph L. wan 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28