Opinion
2:24-cv-02026-SHL-tmp
03-11-2024
SEDRICK STEELE, Plaintiff, v. RENAISSANCE AT STEELE, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SHERYL H. LIPMAN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), filed February 21, 2024. (ECF No. 9.) In the R&R, the Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss pro se Plaintiff Sedrick Steele's complaint without prejudice for failing to either pay the $405 civil filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis affidavit even after the Chief Magistrate Judge entered an Order on January 12, 2024, directing him to do so within 30 days. (See ECF No. 8.)
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
Steele's deadline to object to the R&R was March 6, 2024, and no objections were filed. The Court has therefore reviewed the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds none. The R&R properly describes Steele's failure to comply with the statutory requirements governing the payment of the civil filing fee and the Court agrees that the case should be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge's R&R and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.