Opinion
3:23-cv-5546-RJB
07-31-2023
TIFFANY RECINOS, Plaintiff, v. JUAN RECINOS, Defendants.
NOTED FOR: AUGUST 18, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THERESA L. FRICKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 16, 2023, plaintiff filed a proposed complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1). Given the identified deficiencies in the proposed complaint, the Court did not grant plaintiff's IFP application. Plaintiff was given until July 21, 2023 to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed or file an amended complaint. Dkt. 7.
Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause wherein she stated that “plaintiff has text messages from Realtor dealing with identity theft and property sale of her property without her permission. This court is letting Mr. Recinos get away with this by not aprehending him!” Dkt. 8 at 1. She attached 23 pages of documents related to her petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in separate cases. Dkt. 8 at 2-24. Plaintiff's response does not address this Court's jurisdiction to hear her claims. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 August 18, 2023, as noted in the caption.