Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Larcenia Taylor v. Rebecca Blank Secretary of United States Dep't of Commerce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 24, 2013

LARCENIA TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
REBECCA BLANK SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEP'T OF COMMERCE,
DEFENDANT.

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 42 USC § 1981

Larcenia Taylor ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action for discrimination by the United States Department of Commerce ("Defendant"). On March 28, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and determined Plaintiff's claim for a violation of the First Amendment fails as a matter of law, and Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting her claim that Defendant is liable for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Doc. 7). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of these claims.

The Findings and Recommendations contained a notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days of service, or by April 11, 2013. (Doc. 7 at 7). Plaintiff was advised failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Id. However, to date, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the recommendation that these claims be dismissed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are 2 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 28, 2013 (Doc. 7), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff's claim for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is DISMISSED;

3. Plaintiff's claim for a violation of the First Amendment is DISMISSED; and

4. The action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claim for discrimination in violation of Title VII.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20130424

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.