Ramsey v. Elko County Sheriff's Department
Ramsey v. Elko County Sheriff's Department
Trial Court Opinion
2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 ROBERT ANDREW RAMSEY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00279-MMD-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELKO COUNTY SHERIFF’S CARLA L. BALDWIN 9 DEPARTMENT, et al.,
10 Defendants.
11 12 Plaintiff Robert Andrew Ramsey brings this civil rights case under to
42 U.S.C. § 131983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 14 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin concerning Ramsey’s application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 6; see also ECF Nos. 1, 3), and ultimately 16 recommending that Ramsey’s case be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s 17 order. (ECF No. 12.) Ramsey timely objected to the R&R (“Objection”). (ECF No. 13.) For 18 the reasons below, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R in full. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Ramsey’s 24 Objection to the R&R, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept 25 Judge Baldwin’s R&R and finds it should be. 26 Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing this action because Ramsey has failed to 27 comply with the Court’s order that he resubmit an updated IFP Application with an updated 28 financial certificate, or pay the full filing fee. (ECF No. 12 at 1; ECF Nos. 7, 9; see also 2 Objection, Ramsey does not contest his failure to comply with the Court’s order. (See ECF 3 No. 13.) Instead, he asks for the Court to give him an additional 45 to 60 days to comply, 4 claiming that he submitted requests to inmate accounting for a copy of his financial 5 certificate and never received a response and that he is not certain when he will receive 6 the document in light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. (Id. at 2.) 7 However, the attachments accompanying Ramsey’s Objection shows that he has in fact 8 received responses regarding the requested financial certificate, including expeditiously 9 only four days before he filed the Objection. (See
id. at 3(inmate “banking” services 10 responding to an April 9, 2020 request from Ramsey on April 10, 2020, stating “your 11 Financial Cert was sent out 3/12/2020”),
id. at 4(responding to February 27, 2020 inquiry 12 from Ramsey on February 28, 2020, providing “Your request was received on 2/26/2020 13 you were sent, ‘notification of change of address’ and a ‘Financial Certificate’, forms”).) 14 Considering that Ramsey’s own evidence indicates that he was sent the financial 15 certificate and therefore creates a presumption that he should have received the same, 16 there is no basis for the Court to reject the R&R. Further, since dismissal is without 17 prejudice, Ramsey is entitled to file his action again when he can provide a financial 18 certificate to support an IFP Application. For now, dismissal without prejudice is most 19 proper based on the record before the Court and to control the Court’s docket. See, e.g., 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A.,
782 F.2d 829, 831(9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing 21 that district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise 22 of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a 23 case); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
833 F.2d 128, 130(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for 24 failure to comply with court order). The Court therefore accepts the R&R in full. 25 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and 26 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 12) is accepted and 27 adopted in its entirety. 28 It is further ordered that the Objection (ECF No. 13) is overruled. 1 It is further ordered that the case is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons 2 || stated herein. 3 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 DATED THIS 20" day of May 2020. 5 ~~ 6 7 KRANDA M-DO CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown