Opinion
No. 3:11-CV-661-HU.
December 09, 2011.
LATOYA CREDIT Plaintiff, Pro Se, and appearing on behalf of each Plaintiff.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation (#4) on June 30, 2011, in which he recommends this Court grant Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1), dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs' Complaint (#2) to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state agency Defendants Department of Human Services and Juvenile Detention Center, and dismiss without prejudice the remainder of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Magistrate Judge also recommends giving Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies set out in the Findings and Recommendation.
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)(rev'd on other grounds). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983). The Court has reviewed the legal principles de novo and adopts the Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#4). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1). The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs' Complaint (#2) to the extent that they bring claims against Defendants Department of Human Services and Juvenile Detention Center under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court DISMISSES the remainder of Plaintiffs' Complaint (#2) without prejudice and with leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies set out in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation no later than January 13, 2012.
The Court assumes without deciding that a person appointed as a representative of minor Plaintiffs Everett Matin, Tyreik Credit, or Shondrenika Credit under Rule 17(c)(1) may proceed pro se. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). If necessary, the Court will revisit that issue in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.