From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swan v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 5, 2018
CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05320-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Sep. 5, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05320-BHS-DWC

09-05-2018

DEWAUN JAMES SWAN, Plaintiff, v. MILLER and PIERCE COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Noting Date: September 21, 2018

The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Dewaun James Swan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action on April 23, 2018. Dkt. 1. After granting Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and issued an Order, explaining Plaintiff had adequately alleged claims against Defendant Miller, but that Pierce County Jail was an improper Defendant. Dkt. 8. The Court directed Plaintiff to show cause or file an Amended Complaint, and informed Plaintiff that the Amended Complaint would act as a complete substitute for the original Complaint. Id. at p. 4. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 10.

The Court screened Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and found that it contained even less clear allegations than his original Complaint. Dkt. 11. The Court identified several deficiencies, ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, and warned Plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the Order, the Court would recommend Plaintiff's action be dismissed. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his Second Amended Complaint by August 17, 2018. Id. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court's Order and correct the deficiencies identified by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice.

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). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on September 21, 2018, as noted in the caption.

Dated this 5th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

David W. Christel

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Swan v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 5, 2018
CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05320-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Sep. 5, 2018)
Case details for

Swan v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:DEWAUN JAMES SWAN, Plaintiff, v. MILLER and PIERCE COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 5, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05320-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash. Sep. 5, 2018)