Recinos v. UPS Store 0352

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA TIFFANY RECINOS, CASE NO. C23-5948 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. UPS STORE #0352, 11 Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 9, recommending the Court deny pro se Plaintiff Tiffany Recinos’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, and dismiss her proposed complaints, Dkts. 1, 4-1, and 5, without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to state a plausible claim. Recinos appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before Judge Christel issued his R&R. Dkt. 6.

19 Recinos’s complaint is difficult to follow. She appears to contend that a UPS store mishandled the Ninth Circuit briefs she engaged them to deliver, and perhaps charged her more than she thought they should. She makes no attempt to describe how this Court has jurisdiction over such a claim.

1 Recinos wants the UPS employees “terminated for felony activity,” and she wants her mail delivered. Dkt. 1. The R&R correctly concludes that Recinos has failed to plausibly articulate how this Court has jurisdiction over her claim, and her reference to state criminal statutes fails to state a plausible claim in this Court as a matter of law. Dkt.

5 9 at 3.

6 Recinos objects, asserting that “UPS store subjected my mail to unsafe conditions and a secondary company had access against my consent. Then they raised postage price on 3rd parcel—in same day.” Dkt. 12 at 1.

9 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 11 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).

17 Recinos has not met this standard, and she cannot. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over her claim to have a UPS employee “terminated for felony activity.” She has failed to state a plausible claim for relief in this Court, as a matter of law.

21 The R&R is ADOPTED, Recinos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to articulate any basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a plausible claim.

3 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. The Court will not accept any further filings in this case other than a Notice of Appeal of this Order.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated this 11th day of December, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge