Opinion
C.A. No. 03-298 T
January 26, 2004
Report and Recommendation
On July 14, 2003, David Hazard, pro se, filed with the Court a one page document that was docketed by the Clerk of Court as a Complaint, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, since the plaintiff had failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In the Order denying in forma pauperis status, this Court informed the plaintiff that his Complaint was deficient since it did not identify any named individual nor set forth any facts sufficient to maintain a claim.
Since July 14, 2003, plaintiff has failed to pursue this matter in any manner. He has not paid the filing fee, has not re-filed his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has he filed an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, I recommend that this instant action be dismissed for a failure to prosecute.
Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Failure to file timely, specific objection to this report constitutes waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right to appeal the district court's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam);Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).