United States District Court, E.D. California
August 25, 2014
DMITRIY YEGOROV, Plaintiff,
BEL AIR COMPANY, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of an incident at a Bel Air supermarket. Plaintiff complains that he had to wait to use a restroom because it was occupied by an employee who was using a cell phone. Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by Bel Air employees and that after plaintiff called 911, Sacramento Sheriff's Department employees refused to provide a citizen arrest form to plaintiff. The complaint fails to set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
By order filed August 12, 2014, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than August 20, 2014 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a response to the order to show cause but does not set forth an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction. There being no evident basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).