Opinion
2:23-cv-00976-JAD-EJY
10-03-2023
MICHAEL D. WOODFALL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA; et al. Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a state court application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) together with a Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. On June 28, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's IFP application because it was not on the Court's form. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was granted until July 28, 2023 to either file a complete IFP application on the correct form or pay the $402 filing fee. Id. at 2. On July 17 and 18, 2023, Plaintiff's mail was returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 5, 6. On July 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to update his address and either file a complete IFP application or pay the $402 filing fee. ECF No. 7. The Court further instructed the Clerk of Court to send courtesy copies of the Court's Order and the June 28, 2023 Order to Plaintiff's physical address and email address. Id. at 2. On July 27 and 31, 2023, Plaintiff's email and mail were returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 8, 9.
On August 28, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to “show cause no later than September 22, 2023, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's June 28 and July 20, 2023 Orders.” ECF No. 10. On September 5, 2023, the Court's Order to Show Cause was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 11.
Notwithstanding the above, to date, Plaintiff has not updated his address, paid the filing fee, or filed a complete in forma pauperis application.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Orders.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days. The supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).