Opinion
3:23-CV-1221-JCC-DWC
10-23-2023
RONALD BENJAMIN WHITE, Plaintiff, v. MONROE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT UNIT, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Ronald Benjamin White, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action on August 9, 2023. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's order directing him to file an amended complaint. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff, a convicted and sentenced state prisoner, alleges Defendant Monroe Correctional Complex Intensive Management Unit violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by failing to provide him with a clean drinking cup. Dkt. 5. On August 21, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. 6 (“Order”). The Court provided Plaintiff with leave to file an amended pleading by September 21, 2023, to cure the deficiencies. Id. The Court warned Plaintiff it would recommend dismissal of this action if Plaintiff did not correct the deficiencies of the Complaint. See 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. See Dkt. 6. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to follow a Court order and failure to provide a servable complaint. As Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the Court finds this case should be considered a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
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 November 10, 2023, as noted in the caption.