Opinion
Case No. 2:15-cv-01122-RFB-NJK
01-06-2016
RUSSELL K. HILL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE NANCY KOPPE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Nancy Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 31, 2015 (ECF No. 6), that the action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff would then have the ability to either pay the appropriate filing fee in full, or submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court construes Plaintiff Russell Hill's "Motion to Strike Report and Recommendation" (ECF No. 8) as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and, as set forth below, adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses the Plaintiff's action.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct "any review," de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Here, the Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation which recommended rejecting the Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will conduct a de novo review.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the filings in this case and adopts Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation in full. Throughout this action, Plaintiff has filed three applications to proceed in forma pauperis, all of which were incomplete (ECF Nos. 1, 3, and 5). The Court denied the first two applications, stating the bases for its denial, and explaining to Plaintiff what was required in order for the Court to grant his application. ECF Nos. 2, 4. Namely, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to submit an inmate account statement and properly executed financial certificate. Id. The Court granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to cure these deficiencies and allowed him until August 27, 2015 to submit a complete application. ECF No. 4. In this third application, submitted August 24, 2015 (ECF No. 5), the Plaintiff submitted a financial certificate, but failed to submit an inmate account statement.
In his objection to Judge Koppe's Report & Recommendation, Plaintiff alleges that "either the Clerk of the Court...or the Magistrate Judge...are responsible or culpable for inducing fraud upon the Court and obstruction of justice." ECF No. 8 at 1. The Court does not find this argument responsive to the Judge Koppe's Report & Recommendation, nor does the Court find any basis for this allegation. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, the Court adopts Judge Koppe's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's action without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is instructed that he may commence a new action in which he either pays the appropriate filing fee in full or submits a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis
DATED this 6th day of January, 2016.
/s/ _________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE