United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
May 15, 2014
JOSE GUADALUPE VALERIO-GOMEZ, Plaintiff,
GEO GROUP, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. RICHARD CREATURA, Magistrate Judge.
The District Court has referred this Bivens action to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
On December 6, 2013, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint and the Court gave plaintiff guidance regarding the defects in his original complaint (Dkt. 6). In late December, plaintiff responded by letter and provided the names of some of the medical staff he wanted to name as defendants (Dkt. 7). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.
On February 3, 2014, the Court again ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Dkt. 8). The Court gave plaintiff until February 28, 2014 to comply with the Court's order. Plaintiff again responded by letter, but did not submit an amended complaint. This matter has now been pending for six months and the Court does not have a complaint it can serve on a named defendant. Plaintiff knows the identity of several of the medical providers and has given the Court the information in his correspondence (Dkt. 9).
The Court recommends dismissal of this action for failure to comply with the Court's orders to file an amended complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) provides for involuntary dismissal of an action where plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or comply with court orders. Dismissal under this section is without prejudice unless the order states otherwise. The Court recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 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). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on June 6, 2014, as noted in the caption.