Snider v. Burton

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations. The present action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 3/30/2015. Mailed to pro se party Vaughn Snider by regular mail.(smg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Vaughn Snider,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 15-1043-JTM

Amy Burton,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court upon the Report and Recommendation filed by the
United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 6), which both granted pro se plaintiff Vaughn
Snider’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and recommended the undersigned dismiss
the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Even allowing for a liberal construction of the
pro se plainitff’s form Complaint, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Complaint
failed to demonstrate any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and further failed to
state any claim for relief. (Dkt. 6, at 4-6 (citing Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1039 (10th
Cir.2006)). The Magistrate Judge concluded:
Simply stated, the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claim fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. There are no factual allegations whatsoever
regarding any civil rights violation. Defendant would not have sufficient
notice of the claims asserted by Plaintiff, making it impossible to provide an
appropriate answer. Monroe, 2002 WL 437964. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not

even approach the minimal requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). There is no
short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to
relief. There is no short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
court’s jurisdiction depends. Based on the information presented in his
Complaint, Plaintiff has not plead a viable federal court cause of action.
(Id. at 7).
Here, the Magistrate Judge explicitly advised the parties that, purusutant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and D.Kan.R. 72.1.4, those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which neither party objects are deemed admitted, and that failure to
object constitutes a waiver of any right to appeal. (Dkt. 6, at 8). See Hill v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1114 (10th Cir.2004); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659
(10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff has failed to submit any timely objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff has filed a Supplement (Dkt. 8) to his Complaint, but this only
specifies that “[t]he amount I am seeking is $300,000.” The Supplement makes no reference
to the Report and Recommendation, and thus presents no objection Magistrate Judge’s
determination that the Complaint is so devoid of allegations of fact that dismissal is
warranted.
For good cause shown and pursuant to D.Kan.R. 72.1.4, the Report and
Recommendation is hereby adopted, and the present action is hereby DISMISSED.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

2