Hicklen v. US Government Law Enforcement Agents
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that: (1) This action be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff Jamal Brian Hicklen's ability to commence a new action in which he submits a complaint and either pays the appropriate filing fee in full or submits a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Objections to R&R due by 9/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/1/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JAMAL BRIAN HICKLEN,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02346-GMN-PAL
REPORT OF FINDINGS AND
US GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Jamal Brian Hicklen’s failure to comply with
the court’s Order (ECF No. 3). This proceeding 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.
Mr. Hicklen submitted initiating documents (ECF No. 1) that appeared to seek some form
of relief from this court for monetary damages against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. However, his initiating documents did not include a proposed complaint, and he did
not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or remit the $400 filing fee. On
July 13, 2017, the court entered an Order (ECF No. 3) directing the Clerk of the Court to mail
Hicklen a blank IFP application and form complaint. The court allowed him to file an IFP
application or pay the $400 filing fee on or before August 11, 2017. Id. Mr. Hicklen was further
ordered to submit a proposed complaint by the same date. The Order warned him that (1) a failure
to file an IFP application or pay the filing fee, or (2) a failure to file a complaint would result in a
recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.
To date, Hicklen has not filed an IFP application or complaint, paid the filing fee, requested
an extension of time, or taken any other action to prosecute this case.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff Jamal Brian Hicklen’s ability
to commence a new action in which he submits a complaint and either pays the
appropriate filing fee in full or submits a completed application to proceed in forma
2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 1st day of September, 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?