Opinion
CV-24-00937-PHX-JZB
08-16-2024
Judy Carrillo, Plaintiff, v. Chex Systems Incorporated, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable John Z. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to General Order 21-25. This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee by August 5, 2024, pursuant to this Court's July 23, 2024, Order. (Doc. 9.)
General Order 21-25 states in relevant part:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee[.]
On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter against Chex Systems, Inc. for Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also alleged her constitutional rights had been violated. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks $150 million in damages. (Id.) Concurrent with her Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 2.)
On May 13, 2024, the Honorable G. Murray Snow issued a show cause order, citing Plaintiff's failure to timely file her consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction form. (Doc. 5.) On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed her consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and the show-cause hearing was vacated. (Doc. 7, 8.)
On July 23, 2024, this Court, noting Plaintiff's well-documented pattern of abusing the process for indigent litigants, denied Plaintiff's application to proceed without paying a filing fee. (Doc. 9.) The Court ordered Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in this matter on or before August 5, 2024. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and the Court will recommend dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.