Sanders et al v. Bowers et al

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting 9 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 08/06/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9

2:13-CV-652 JCM (CWH)

LARRY SANDERS, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

10
11

v.

12

ESURANCE INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman.

17

(Doc. # 9). Pro se plaintiffs Kamaya Mack, Genora Sanders, and Larry Sanders filed objections to

18

the report and recommendation. (Doc. # 11).

19

On April 29, 2013, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion to proceed

20

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for failure to submit a complete application. (Doc. # 3). The magistrate

21

judge denied the motion to proceed IFP without prejudice and instructed plaintiffs to file a completed

22

application by May 24, 2013. (Id.).

23

Plaintiffs responded by filing a number of irrelevant exhibits, (see doc. # 4), and a renewed

24

motion to proceed IFP (doc. # 5). In the renewed motion to proceed IFP, (doc. # 5), plaintiffs

25

indicated that even though they do not wish to pay the necessary filing fees, they believe that they

26

are not required to submit an IFP application for various reasons. The magistrate judge, for the

27

second time, denied the motion without prejudice and gave a deadline date, May 31, 2013, to file a

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

completed application to proceed IFP. (Doc. # 6).

2

The magistrate judge warned that failure to comply with the court’s instructions would result

3

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiffs never complied with the magistrate

4

judge’s order, and now the magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice. (Doc. # 9).

5

Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. # 11).

6

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

7

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

8

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

9

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

10

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

11

Plaintiffs’ objections raise the same arguments they made to the magistrate judge. Plaintiffs

12

do not believe they should have to fill out financial information to proceed IFP. The local rules

13

clearly require that persons seeking to proceed in federal court without paying the required filing fees

14

must submit an application with financial information. Specifically, the relevant local rules states

15

“[t]he application shall be made on the form provided by the Court and shall include a financial

16

affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses and liabilities.” LSR 1-1.

17
18

The court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements to proceed IFP. The case
shall be dismissed without prejudice.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

21

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (doc. # 9) be, and the same hereby, is ADOPTED in its

22

entirety.

23
24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action shall be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk
of the court shall enter judgment and close the case.
DATED August 6, 2013.

26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-