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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?