Opinion
No. 2: 17-cv-0129 TLN CKD PS
02-13-2017
BRODERICK WARFIELD, Plaintiff, v. PALADIN SECURITY, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of an interaction he had with a security guard. The complaint fails to set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
By order filed January 26, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than February 7, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause. There being no evident basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
On February 2, 2017, plaintiff filed a one-page document titled "Amended Complaint." However, no allegations are set forth in the amended complaint and the document comprises only the face page of a complaint. --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: February 13, 2017
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 warfield0129.nosmj.57