Opinion
Case No.: 2:19-cv-02113-JAD-NJK
04-10-2020
ANNMARIE BISHOP, Plaintiff(s), v. MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL, Defendant(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 11, 2019, the Court found that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete and thus denied it without prejudice to file a new application. Docket No. 3 at 1, 3. The Court required Plaintiff to, no later than January 21, 2020, "file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis" or "pay the full $400 fee for filing a civil action." Id. at 3. To date, the Court has not received another application to proceed in forma pauperis or the full $400 fee for filing a civil action.
The Court also found that, "although [it] had not screened Plaintiff's complaint, . . . Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Further, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her case." Docket No. 3 at 3. The Court noted that it would not screen Plaintiff's complaint until she files a new application to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court grants it but that, "[i]f Plaintiff believes she can correct [the noted deficiencies], she may file an amended complaint no later than January 21, 2020." To date, the Court has not received an amended complaint. See Docket.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court a current address. See Docket No. 4. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule IA 3-1.
Dated: April 10, 2020
/s/_________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).