Opinion
Case No. 3:20-cv-00021-MMD-CLB
05-22-2020
JOE MOSLEY, Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Joe Mosley attempts to sue Defendants Sedgwick Claims Management Service and Aritha Parsons. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R" or "Recommendation") of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application ("IFP Application"), but dismiss this case, because Plaintiff's pleading does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Plaintiff had until May 15, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss this case.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." Id. Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation").
While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Baldwin's recommendation to grant Plaintiff's IFP application but dismiss this case, the Court will conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Baldwin first recommended Plaintiff's IFP Application be granted because the information he submitted indicated he cannot pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Judge Baldwin then recommended Plaintiff's case be dismissed under Rule 8(a)(2) because he did not file a complaint, but rather a series of confusing documents consisting exclusively of "largely incomprehensible narrative [that] makes it nearly impossible for the court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims or the nature of his requested relief." (Id. at 4.) She further recommends dismissing the case with prejudice because amendment would be futile. (Id.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case.
DATED THIS 22nd day of May 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE