Opinion
3:23-CV-5333-RJB
07-14-2023
RUTH MARIE ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants.
Noting Dated: August 4, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
The District Court has referred Plaintiff Ruth Marie Anderson's pending Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed complaint to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel pursuant to Amended General Order 11-22. On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. See Dkts. 1; 1-1.
On April 21, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff had not filed a complete application to proceed IFP and found the proposed complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 3. The Clerk of the Court mailed Plaintiff Ruth Marie Anderson the Order Directing Plaintiff to File IFP Application and Amended Complaint (“Order”). See id. The Order was returned as undeliverable on April 27, 2023. Dkt. 4.
After the Order was returned, the Court directed Plaintiff to update her address on or before June 26, 2023, or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. 5. This order was also returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 6. The returned envelope indicates Plaintiff does not live at the address on file with the Court and there is no known forwarding address. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order and Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2). She has not filed a corrected IFP application or a proposed amended complaint correcting the deficiencies contained within the proposed complaint, both of which were due on May 5, 2023. Additionally, she has not provided the Court with her current address. As Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Orders and prosecute this case, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions, including the Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 1), be denied as moot.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on August 4, 2023, as noted in the caption.