THOMPSON v. MV Transportation Inc

Filing 5

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

STEVEN THOMPSON,

8
v.

9
10

Case No. 2:16-cv-01726-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

MV TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Steven Thompson’s failure to comply with the

13

court’s Order (ECF No. 3). This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice.

15

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. He submitted an Application to Proceed In

16

Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The court issued a Screening Order

17

(ECF No. 3) granting Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis and screening the

18

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The undersigned found that the complaint failed to

19

state a colorable claim and allowed him until July 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint. The

20

Screening Order warned Plaintiff that a failure to file an amended complaint addressing the

21

deficiencies explained by the court would result in a recommendation to the district judge that this

22

case be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension

23

of time, or taken any other action to prosecute this case.

24

Accordingly,

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

2

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice.

3

2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly.

4

Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.

5
6

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

NOTICE

8
9

This Report of Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned district judge

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals for

11

the Ninth Circuit. Any notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until entry of the

12

district court’s judgment. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 4(a)(1). Pursuant to LR IB 3-2(a) of the Local

13

Rules of Practice, any party wishing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and

14

recommendations of shall file and serve specific written objections, together with points and

15

authorities in support of those objections, within 14 days of the date of service. See also 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6, 72. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

17

Judge’s Report of Findings and Recommendation,” and it is subject to the page limitations found

18

in LR 7-3(b). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

19

result in the district court’s acceptance of this Report of Findings and Recommendation without

20

further review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition,

21

failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations by a magistrate judge may be

22

considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or

23

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th

24

Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72.

25
26
27
28
2