Kelly v. United States Government

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 SABRINA KELLY, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05674-BHS 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et Noting Date: October 22, 2024 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 The District Court has referred Plaintiff Sabrina Kelly’s pending Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and Proposed Complaint to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J.

17 Leupold pursuant to Amended General Order 11-22.

18 On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proposed Complaint and an Application to Proceed IFP, that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil case. See Dkts. 1, 1-1. On August 20, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Proposed Complaint and found it was deficient because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Dkt. 2. In that Order, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies by September 20, 2024, and re-noted the pending IFP Application. Id. The Court warned that failure to file a proposed amended complaint would result in the Court recommending the dismissal of this matter without prejudice. Id. 3 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s August 20, 2024, Order. She has not filed a proposed amended complaint correcting the deficiencies contained within the Proposed Complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s Order. As Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order and prosecute this case, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and the IFP Application (Dkt. 1) be DENIED as moot.

8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on October 22, 2024, as noted in the caption.

16 Dated this 8th day of October, 2024.

A 19 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge