Opinion
3:22-CV-5970-BHS
02-21-2023
TAM TRAN, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, Defendant.
Noting Dated: March 10, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID W. CHRISTEL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The District Court has referred Plaintiff Tam Tran'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 11-22. On December 14, 2022, Tran filed a proposed civil complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. See Dkts. 1; 1-2.
On January 5, 2023, the Court screened Tran's proposed complaint and found it was deficient because Tran 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 Tran leave to file an amended pleading by February 6, 2023, 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 IFP be denied and the case be closed. Id.
Tran 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, Tran failed to state a claim upon which relief could 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 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 March 10, 2023, as noted in the caption.