govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-00108-4

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of 
minor child E.R.N, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
FRANK BISGNANO, Commissioner of 
Social Security, 
Defendant. 
Case No. 1:26-cv-00108 JLT SKO 
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, 
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 
OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 
(Doc. 9) 
Pro se Plaintiff Christine Navarro, on behalf of minor child E.R.N., filed the operative 
complaint on January 21, 2026, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 
Security denying an application for disability benefits. (Doc. 4.) 
On January 22, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge found that Plaintiff Navarro could not 
proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of E.R.N. without E.R.N.’s representation by an 
attorney and issued an order granting Plaintiff Navarro forty-five (45) days to secure 
representation for her minor child’s claims. (Doc. 6 at 3.) No attorney appearance has been 
entered, and the time to do so has passed. (See Docket.) 
The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff Navarro on March 23, 2026, to show cause as to why 
this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of legal representation of a minor 
plaintiff. (Doc. 7.) No response was filed, and the time to do so has passed. (See Docket.) 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
On May 5, 2026, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the 
action be dismissed without prejudice because non-attorney Plaintiff Navarro “may not bring 
such claims in a representative capacity on behalf of E.R.N.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) Furthermore, the 
magistrate judge found that leave to amend would not be appropriate because Plaintiff Navarro 
“will not be able to remedy the defect that, as a non-lawyer, she cannot bring claims on behalf of 
minor child E.R.N.” (Id.) 
The Court served the Findings and Recommendation on Plaintiff Navarro and notified her 
that any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 9 at 1, 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff Navarro 
that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 
appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff 
Navarro did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 
case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 
Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 5, 2026 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED 
in full. 
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: June 10, 2026 
 

Passage view · GavelSight