Williams v. Larson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 CHARLES JAMES WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00599-RSL-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LUKE LARSON, et al., Noting Date: July 10, 2025 Defendants.

15 The District Court referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J.

16 Leupold. Plaintiff Charles James Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and Proposed Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkts. 1, 1-1.

19 On April 24, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found it was deficient.

20 Dkt. 4. As Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court declined to order service of the Complaint. Id. However, the Court provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by May 27, 2025, to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order. Id. Further, the Court declined to rule on the IFP Motion (Dkt. 1) until Plaintiff responded to the Court’s April 24, 2025, Order. Dkt. 4. The Court warned that failure to adequately address the issues identified in the Order would result in the Court recommending dismissal of this action. Id. 3 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order. He has not filed a response to the Order or filed an amended complaint. Further, as discussed in the Order, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the Complaint. See Dkt. 4. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

7 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (Dkt. 1) should 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 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 July 10, 2025, as noted in the caption.

15 Dated this 25th day of June, 2025.

A Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge