Peoples v. Oregon Department of Human Services

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

JACOB PEOPLES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00378-CL

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

OREGON DEPARMTENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Jacob Peoples, self-represented litigant, (“Plaintiff”), seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action against Defendants Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”), Child Protective Services (“CPS”), and three CPS employees (“Defendants”). See Compl., ECF No. 1. On March 13, after screening the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Order, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff’s IFP application, ECF No. 2, was held in abeyance to be reconsidered upon the filing of an amended complaint. Although Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint within the thirty-day window, he has failed to cure the identified deficiencies. Because this case deals with child custody issues, Plaintiff was instructed to provide details regarding the status of any related state court proceedings. Plaintiff has failed to provide such details in his amended complaint. Consequently, Plaintiff’s case should be DISMISSED with prejudice, and the pending motions should be DENIED as moot. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s case should be DISMISSED with prejudice, and the pending motions should be DENIED as moot. This Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen (14) days after the date this Recommendation is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within fourteen (14) days after the date the objections are filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order.

DATED this _9 _ day of April, Loe) MARKD.CLARKE = ————————C United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 —- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION