Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-00369-MMD-PAL
04-14-2017
PAPA HULUWAZU, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM SNYDER, et al., Defendants.
REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Papa Huluwazu, Ed.D.'s failure to comply with the court's Screening Order (ECF No. 2). This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and he submitted a complaint on February 23, 2016. See Compl. (ECF No. 3). The court issued a Screening Order (ECF No. 2) granting Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis and screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The undersigned found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege personal and subject matter jurisdiction over defendants and lacked proper venue. He was allowed until April 10, 2017, to file an amended complaint. The Screening Order warned Plaintiff that a failure to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies explained by the court would result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of time to do so.
On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a letter (ECF No. 4) to the court restating many of the allegations in his initial complaint. Even if the court were to construe the letter as an amended complaint, the letter did not address the deficiencies explained in the Screening Order.
Accordingly, / / /
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 3) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 14th day of April, 2017.
/s/_________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE
This Report of Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Any notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(1). Pursuant to LR IB 3-2(a) of the Local Rules of Practice, any party wishing to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations of shall file and serve specific written objections, together with points and authorities in support of those objections, within 14 days of the date of service. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6, 72. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report of Findings and Recommendation," and it is subject to the page limitations found in LR 7-3(b). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the district court's acceptance of this Report of Findings and Recommendation without further review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations by a magistrate judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72.