Seip v. King County et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; denying IFP application; 6 MOTION filed by Larry Seip does not appear to require any action from the court by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) cc Seip

01
02
03
04
05
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

06
07
08 LARRY SEIP,
09
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KING COUNTY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

CASE NO. C12-0388-RSM

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION

13
14

Plaintiff Larry Siep, proceeding pro se, filed this action “to find out if [he is] the father

15 of Alexander Wells.” See Dkt. No. 1, p. 1. Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a motion for
16 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States
17 Magistrate Judge, reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status and recommended
18 that the motion be denied. Dkt. No. 3. Shortly after Judge Theiler filed her recommendation,
19 Plaintiff paid the $350 civil filing fee. Plaintiff also filed a “Motion of Response and
20 Objection” to the recommendation. Dkt. No. 5. Finally, Plaintiff re-filed a document entitled
21 “Motion of Kidnapping of Alexander Wells,” which had also been attached to his motion to
22 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 6 & Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.

ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION
PAGE -1

01

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary

02 Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Response and Objection thereto,
03 Plaintiff’s Motion of Kidnapping and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER:
04

(1)

Although Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, he also objects to Judge Theiler’s

05

Report and Recommendation denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

06

Therefore, the Court does not construe Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee as a

07

waiver of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless,

08

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation directing Plaintiff

09

to pay the filing fee within thirty days. Since Plaintiff has already paid the

10

filing fee, no further action from Plaintiff with respect to the filing fee is

11

required.

12

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Kidnapping of Alexander Wells (Dkt. No. 6) does not

13

appear to require any action from the Court. The Court construes this motion as

14

Plaintiff’s operative complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3.

15

If Plaintiff wishes to file a different complaint as the operative complaint in this

16

lawsuit, he must do so in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.

17
18
19

(3)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge
Theiler.

DATED this 3 day of April 2012.

A

20
21

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION
PAGE -2