Sharp v. Hornaday

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1) The Report and Recommendation entered on April 17, 2017 (Dkt. 8 ), shall be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. (2) Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CALYSTA SHARP,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00072-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
ERIC HORNADAY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Calysta Sharp initially filed her complaint in the Eastern District of
California. See Compl., Dkt. 1. The California federal court transferred the case to this
Court, noting that “[a]lthough it is not clear from plaintiff’s pleading the basis of subject
matter jurisdiction, it is apparent that venue is not proper in the Eastern District of
California.” See Feb. 10, 2017 Order, Dkt. 3.
On April 17, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. denied Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis because the application was incomplete, and
further recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with this
recommendation, and will therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. See,
e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003). Furthermore, to
the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within
fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation).
Here, no objections were filed so the Court is not required to conduct a de novo
determination of the Recommendation. Regardless, however, the Court has conducted
such a review and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Plaintiff has not
put forth any basis for federal-question jurisdiction and it does not appear that the
complaint could be saved by any amendment. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) The Report and Recommendation entered on April 17, 2017 (Dkt. 8), shall be,
and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED: September 23, 2017

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3