1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD J. RUCKER, JR., No. 2:25-cv-2503 DAD AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On September 22, 19 2025, the court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as barred by 20 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond would 21 result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded. 22 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth by the District Judge in his order denying plaintiff’s 23 motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5), it is RECOMMENDED that this case be 24 dismissed as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 27 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 28 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 || Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: October 9, 2025 ~

ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28