Opinion
No. 2:18-cv-00601 MCE GGH
05-07-2018
DMITRIY YEGOROV, Plaintiff, v. MELNICHUR DANIIL, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff appearing pro se filed his complaint for alleged personal injury against defendant, apparently a foreign national on March 21, 2018. ECF No. 1. On March 26, 2018 this court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a jurisdictional basis for this court to hear it, explained the federal pleading requirements, and granted plaintiff a one time opportunity to file an amended complaint that conformed to the instructions found in the Order within 30 days of the Order. Thus plaintiff's amended complaint was due to be filed on or before April 26, 2018. ECF No. 3.
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as directed, instead objecting to the Order of March 26, 2018. ECF No. 4. The content of the objections make it clear that plaintiff is unable to meet the pleading requirements both to state a jurisdictional basis for the complaint and to conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). ////
In light of the foregoing it is recommended that the complaint in this matter be dismissed without leave to amend.
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)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The 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). Dated: May 7, 2018
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE