Ball v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Opinion

* * *

WILLIAM H. BALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-01452-CDS-EJY

Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. This action commenced when Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) together with a Complaint on August 8, 2024. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. On January 2, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP and screened his Complaint. ECF No. 3. The Court gave Plaintiff through and including January 24, 2025 to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5. On January 14, 2025, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 4. The Court subsequently issued an Order on January 27, 2025 instructing Plaintiff to update his address no later than February 17, 2025. ECF No. 5. As of the date of this Recommendation, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint; nor has he otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. Dated this 20th day of February, 2025.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).