Opinion
Case No.: 2:12-cv-01038-GMN-VCF
07-16-2013
CHIBUEZE C. ANAEME, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. (ECF No. 4.) In response, Plaintiff Chibueze C. Anaeme ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will accept in full Judge Ferenbach's Report and Recommendation to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff instituted the instant action on June 19, 2012 when he filed his Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) In Plaintiff's Complaint, he requests "damages under causes of action within meaning of but not limited to FTCA 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346, 1402, 2401, 2402, 2671 et seq. . . .." (Compl. 31:3-5, ECF No. 1-1.)
Although Plaintiff's Complaint is difficult to follow, it appears that Plaintiff's grievance arises from the alleged actions of a law firm in New Mexico. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that certain attorneys in Albuquerque, New Mexico agreed to represent Plaintiff in an employment discrimination matter. (Compl. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff further alleges that at some point after the termination of that attorney-client relationship, these attorneys created duplicates of Plaintiff's case file without Plaintiff's authorization. (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58.)
As a result of these alleged events, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint alleging four causes of action: (1) negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"); (2) conspiracy under the FTCA; (3) disparate treatment under the FTCA; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress under the FTCA. (Compl. ¶¶ 88-114, ECF No. 1-1.)
This action was referred to Judge Ferenbach pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and District of Nevada Local Rule IB 1-4. On July 19, 2012, Judge Ferenbach recommended that this Court enter an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and permitting Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty-three (33) days from the date the clerk mails Plaintiff this Order. Specifically, Judge Ferenbach recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for improper venue, for lack of jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. (Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 4.) In response, more than two months later, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court construes as an objection to Judge Ferenbach's Report & Recommendation. (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 5 (requesting reconsideration of the July 19, 2012 order).) In Plaintiff's objection, he states only that "the complaint as filed by plaintiff pro se in aforerecited cause is proper" and that "[t]he aforerecited cause of action was thoroughly and/or extensively investigated by plaintiff over several years prior to initiation of the corresponding litigation." (Mot. to Reconsider 4:5-7.)
II. DISCUSSION
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b).
Rule IB3-2(a) also provides that such objections must be filed "within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the magistrate judge's ruling." Plaintiff's objection was filed more than two months after the date of the magistrate judge's ruling. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will still consider Plaintiff's untimely filed objection.
In this case, having reviewed Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's Report and Recommendation and conducted a de novo review, the Court agrees that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) be ACCEPTED in full, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, if Plaintiff is able to cure the defects identified in Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by August 19, 2013. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will result in DISMISSAL of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
_______________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge