1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW L. SINGLETON and MYRA F. No. 2:25-cv-2030 DJC AC PS

SINGLETON,

12 Plaintiffs, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14

FREEDOM MORTGAGE

15 CORPORATION; DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., L.P.; and DOES1- 16 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this matter in pro se and pre-trial proceedings are accordingly 20 referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). This action was removed from 21 Sacramento County Superior Court on July 21, 2025. ECF No. 1. On August 11, 2025, 22 defendants filed a motion to dismiss set to be heard on September 17, 2025. ECF No. 13. 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs were required to file an opposition or notice of non- 24 opposition within 14 days of the motion being filed. In this case, the deadline was August 25, 25 2025. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiffs did file a 26 motion to remand, which was not responsive to the motion to dismiss. 27 On August 28, 2025, the court submitted the motion to remand and ordered plaintiffs to 28 show cause within 14 days why their failure to respond to the motion to dismiss should not result 1 in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 18. In 2 response to the order to show cause, plaintiffs filed a notice indicating that they intend to pursue 3 this case, but they did not respond substantively to the motion to dismiss, stating only that they 4 would make their argument in court, even though the hearing had been vacated. ECF No. 24. 5 In light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, on October 2, 2025, the undersigned gave plaintiffs a 6 final opportunity to file a written, substantive opposition to the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 26. 7 Plaintiffs’ opposition was due October 23, 2025. No opposition was filed. Separately, the 8 undersigned recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to remand be denied. Id. That 9 recommendation was adopted by the District Judge. ECF No. 27. Plaintiffs did not object to the 10 Findings and Recommendations, and have filed no documents in this case since their non- 11 substantive filing on September 5, 2025. ECF No. 24. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes 12 that plaintiffs are unable or unwilling to prosecute this case. 13 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 14 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 15 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 17 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 18 move forward without plaintiff’s participation, the undersigned finds the factors weigh in favor of 19 dismissal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 20 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s orders. See Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 24 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 25 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 27 //// 28 //// 1 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 2 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: January 7, 2026 ' ~ 4 CMtan—Clone

ALLISON CLAIRE

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