THOMPSON v. MV Transportation Inc
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's Complaint ECF No. 4 be DISMISSED without prejudice; that the Clerk be instructed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Objections to R&R due by 8/23/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 08/09/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-cv-01726-MMD-PAL
REPORT OF FINDINGS AND
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Steven Thompson’s failure to comply with the
court’s Order (ECF No. 3). This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. He submitted an Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The court issued a Screening Order
(ECF No. 3) granting Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis and screening the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The undersigned found that the complaint failed to
state a colorable claim and allowed him until July 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint. The
Screening Order warned Plaintiff that a failure to file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies explained by the court would result in a recommendation to the district judge that this
case be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension
of time, or taken any other action to prosecute this case.
IT IS RECOMMENDED:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report of Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned district judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. Any notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until entry of the
district court’s judgment. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(1). Pursuant to LR IB 3-2(a) of the Local
Rules of Practice, any party wishing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations of shall file and serve specific written objections, together with points and
authorities in support of those objections, within 14 days of the date of service. See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6, 72. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Report of Findings and Recommendation,” and it is subject to the page limitations found
in LR 7-3(b). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
result in the district court’s acceptance of this Report of Findings and Recommendation without
further review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition,
failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations by a magistrate judge may be
considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or
judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72.
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?