Brandon Lyn Wyatt v. King County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 BRANDON LYN WYATT, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01986-RAJ-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KING COUNTY, Noting Date: January 6, 2026 Defendant.

15 This case has been referred to the Court by the District Court. On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff Brandon Wyatt, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17 Dkt. 1. After being informed of his filing deficiencies related to the filing of a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) or payment of the filing fee, Plaintiff filed an IFP Motion and Proposed Complaint on October 28, 2025. Dkts. 3, 3-1.

20 On November 13, 2025, the Court screened the Proposed Complaint and issued an Order declining to serve the Proposed Complaint and granting leave to file an amended pleading by December 15, 2025. See Dkt. 4. 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. at 6.

3 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s November 13, 2025, Order. He 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. 3) 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 January 6, 2026, as noted in the caption.

17 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2025.

A Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge