Wilder v. United States Government

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JACK RYAN WILDER, CASE NO. C24-5036 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 11 Defendant.

13 This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 3, recommending that the Court deny pro se Plaintiff Jack Wilder’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wilder has not objected to the R&R. 18 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 20 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).

4 The R&R, Dkt. 3, is ADOPTED, Wilder’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

7 The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case.

8 Dated this 2nd day of April, 2024.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge