Opinion
3:22-cv-05978-BHS
05-08-2023
SHAQUNDA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CHINUA JARRETT, Defendant.
Noting Dated: May 26, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge
The District Court has referred Plaintiff Shaqunda Davis'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 December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil complaint. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff filed an application to proceed IFP, that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case on January 23, 2023. See Dkt. 7.
On February 21, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff's proposed complaint and found it was deficient because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Dkt. 8. The Court dismissed the proposed complaint without prejudice, re-noted the pending Application to Proceed IFP, and provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by March 23, 2023, to cure the identified deficiencies. Id.
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 10. The Court screened the proposed amended complaint and again found it was deficient. Dkt. 12. The Court dismissed the proposed amended complaint without prejudice, re-noted the pending Application to Proceed IFP, and provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by April 28, 2023, to cure the identified deficiencies. Id. The Court warned that failure to file an amended complaint or adequately respond to the issues identified in the Order would result in the Court recommending the Application to Proceed IFP be denied and the case be closed. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order. She has not filed a response to the Order or filed a proposed second amended complaint. Further, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the proposed amended complaint. See Dkt. 12. Therefore, the Court recommends the Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 7) be denied and this case be dismissed without prejudice.
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 May 26, 2023, as noted in the caption.