Thuna v. Clark County Clerk of Courts

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's case be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 11/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/30/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

BARREN MAR THUNA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-02475-APG-CWH

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On September 22, 2017, incarcerated pro se Plaintiff Barren Mar Thuna filed a complaint

11

(ECF No. 1-1) without either completing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the filing

12

fee. The Court then issued an order (ECF No. 3) on September 26, 2017 requiring that Plaintiff

13

either pay the filing fee in full or file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. No

14

further filing has been made in this case.

15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

16

action in federal district court. The court may authorize the commencement of an action “without

17

prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable

18

to pay such costs or give security therefore.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In the Court’s previous order

19

(ECF No. 3), Plaintiff was notified that failure to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to

20

proceed in forma pauperis would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. More than

21

thirty days have elapsed since the Court’s order and Plaintiff has not made any further filing.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
1

1
2

RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice.

3

NOTICE

4

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in

5

writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held

6

that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file

7

objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also

8

held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and

9

brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal

10

factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

11

1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

12

DATED: October 30, 2017

13
14

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2