Opinion
3:23-cv-06104-DGE
02-27-2024
ALEXIS CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. TRISH et al., Defendants.
Noted for: March 15, 2024
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge
On December 26, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in regard to her proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 4. Given the identified deficiencies in the proposed complaint, the Court did not grant plaintiff's IFP application. Plaintiff was given until January 26, 2024 to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or file an amended complaint. Dkt. 5.
On January 22, 2024 plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff's statement of claim in her amended complaint is identical to her initial proposed complaint. See Dkts. 4-1, 6. However, plaintiff does not address this Court's jurisdiction to hear her claims. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 March 15, 2024, as noted in the caption.