Sumner v. Allstate Ins. Corp.

Full title: DAVID SUMNER IV, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CORP, et al., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Feb 3, 2020

CASE NO. 3:19-CV-6183-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2020)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:19-CV-6183-BHS-DWC

02-03-2020

DAVID SUMNER IV, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CORP, et al., Defendant.

David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Noting Date: February 21, 2020

Plaintiff David T. Sumner, IV, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See Dkt. 1-1. The District Court has referred Plaintiff's pending Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") and Proposed Complaint to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel pursuant to Amended General Order 02-19.

Plaintiff filed this action on December 10, 2019. See Dkt. 1. On December 20, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint and found it was deficient because Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. See Dkt. 4. The Court dismissed the Proposed Complaint without prejudice, re-noted the pending Application to Proceed IFP, and provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by January 24, 2020, to cure the identified deficiencies. Id. The Court warned that failure to file an amended complaint or adequately respond to the issues identified in the Order would result in the Court recommending the Application to Proceed be denied and the case be closed. Id.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order. He has not filed a response to the Order or filed an amended complaint. Further, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Proposed Complaint. See Dkt. 4. Therefore, the Court recommends the Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 1) be denied and this case be dismissed without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on February 21, 2020, as noted in the caption.

Dated this 3rd day of February, 2020.

/s/_________

David W. Christel

United States Magistrate Judge