Davis v. Snohomish County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CLARENCE DAVIS, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00630-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 SNOHOMISH COUNTY et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Dkt. No. 5. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Clarence Davis filed a prisoner civil rights complaint against Defendants Snohomish County and Snohomish County Public Defenders. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On April 10, 2025, the Clerk sent Mr. Davis a Notice of Filing Deficiency, noting that Mr. Davis had not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 4 at 1. The Clerk informed Mr. Davis that these deficiencies had to be corrected by May 12, 2025, and cautioned him that the failure to do so “may affect the status of [his] case, including dismissal of the action by the Court.” Id. 1 On May 29, 2025, Judge Christel issued an R&R, recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice because “[t]he deadline to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed IFP has elapsed with nothing received from Plaintiff.” Dkt. No. 5 at 1. Any objections to the R&R were due by June 13, 2025. Id. at 2. Mr. Davis did not file objections or request an extension of time to do so. 6 When considering Judge Christel’s R&R, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). As the statute and rule suggest, the Court reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

14 No objections having been filed, and based on an independent review of the record, the Court concurs with Judge Christel that dismissal without prejudice is warranted because Mr. Davis has not paid the filing fee, applied to proceed IFP, or otherwise responded to the Notice of Filing Deficiency. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, Dkt. No. 5, and DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed IFP. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Mr. Davis at his last known address and to Judge Christel.

20 Dated this 16th day of June, 2025.

21 A 22 Lauren King United States District Judge