Grange v. Airvoice Wireless LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 27, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05465
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 TODD GRANGE, Case No. 3:24-cv-05465-BHS 7 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION AIRVOICE WIRELESS LLC, et al., 9 Noted for: October 14, 2024 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order 12 to Show Cause. See Dkt. 3. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 13 in this matter which has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Mathews, 14 Sec’y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule 15 MJR 4(a). 16 On June 11, 2024 plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint and an 17 application to proceed IFP. Dkt. 1. Given the identified deficiencies in the complaint, 18 namely that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not viable and his complaint did not clearly 19 support his common law fraud claim, the Court did not grant plaintiff’s IFP application. 20 See Dkt. 3. Plaintiff was given until August 30, 2024 to show cause why the complaint 21 should not be dismissed or file an amended complaint. Id. 22 Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order. Therefore, the Court recommends 23 a dismissal of this action without prejudice. The parties have fourteen (14) days from 24 1 service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections 3 will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 4 U.S. 140 (1985).

5 Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 6 directed set this matter for consideration on October 14, 2024, as noted in the caption. 7 8 Dated this 27th day of September, 2024. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24