Friedmann v. Multicare Health Systems Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MICHAEL ALEXANDER CASE NO. C23-5770 BHS FRIEDMANN, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS INC, 12 Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Michael Friedmann’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss Friedmann’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, for failure to comply with the Court’s Order, Dkt. 3, and for failure to file an amended complaint. Friedmann has not objected to the R&R. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

6 The R&R is ADOPTED. Friedmann’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to prosecute. The Court will not permit Friedmann to proceed in forma pauperis in the event of an appeal.

10 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

11 Dated this 7thth day of December, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge