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)

Download PDF
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

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?