1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN SR., Case No. 2:24-cv-00386-CDS-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 v. 9 THE SIEGEL GROUP NEVADA INC., 10 Defendant(s). 11 On April 10, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(e). Docket No. 6. The Court construed Plaintiff’s complaint as bringing a claim under 13 Title VII for racial discrimination, and determined that it failed to allege the basic factual contours 14 of the claim to provide notice as to the premise of that claim or to state a claim for relief. Docket 15 No. 6 at 3.1 Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint and afforded Plaintiff the opportunity 16 to file an amended complaint if these deficiencies could be corrected. Id. Plaintiff filed an 17 amended complaint. Docket No. 8. 18 On August 23, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Docket No. 9. 19 The Court determined that the amended complaint failed to cure the prior deficiencies because it 20 did not provide further factual allegations. See id. at 2. Instead, the amended complaint simply 21 attached dozens of pages of exhibits. See id. As a result, the Court dismissed the amended 22

23 1 The Court previously explained that a prima facie case of racial discrimination is stated by showing that: (1) he belongs to a class of persons protected by Title VII; (2) he performed his 24 job satisfactorily; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer treated the plaintiff differently than a similarly situated employee who does not belong to the same protected 25 class as the plaintiff. Docket No. 6 at 2 (citing Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union,

(9th Cir. 2006)). When a complaint does not plead a prima facie case for 26 discrimination, courts may still look to those elements “to decide, in light of judicial experience and common sense, whether the challenged complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted 27 as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Fitch v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.,

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015) (quoting Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 28

(N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015)). 1} complaint with leave to amend. /d. The Court explained that it “does not require evidence in 2|| support of Plaintiffs claims at this time, but rather a short, plain statement showing that he has a 3], colorable claim on which to proceed.” Jd. The Court required that a second amended complaint 4| had to be filed by September 23, 2024,

and warned that failing “to file a second amended 5], complaint by the deadline set above may result in dismissal of this case,” id. at 3 (emphasis 6] in original). Despite that warning, Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint and the deadline to do so has expired. 8 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 Dated: September 26, 2024 11 □ fo Nancy J. Kopp xe 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 NOTICE 15 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 16] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 18] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 19] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 20] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28