Swint v. Central Intelligence Agency

Opinion

3 Robert James Swint, 4 2:24-cv-00339-CDS-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Report and Recommendation 6 Central Intelligence Agency., 7 Defendant(s). 8 On February 15, 2024, pro se plaintiff Robert James Swint filed an Application to Proceed In 9 Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1). On March 14, 2024, I denied plaintiff’s IFP because I could not 10 determine whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis with the information provided. ECF 11 No. 3. I noted that although plaintiff provided some information regarding his income and payments, the 12 information provided was vague and ambiguous. ECF No. 3. I also noted that there were discrepancies 13 in the plaintiff’s IFP. For example, plaintiff indicated on his IFP that he resided in Las Vegas, however, 14 the address provided by plaintiff was an Oregon P.O. Box. See ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 3 at 3:15- 15 16. I also noted that plaintiff filed a total of four cases in the District of Nevada, using three different 16 addresses. ECF No. 3 at 3:16-18. A public records search revealed problems with the addresses 17 provided. One of the addresses was an Oregon hospital. ECF No. 3 at 3: 18-19. The other address does 18 not exist, and upon running a search on the suggested address found plaintiff was listed as a previous 19 resident. ECF No. 3 at 3-4. I noted that plaintiff is either using multiple addresses or is not complying 20 with LR IA 3-1. I also noted that the P.O. Box provided for this present case is potentially associated 21 with a different name and was unsure whether the other name is a different person or alias. I gave 22 plaintiff another chance to file an IFP and ordered him to file the long-form IFP by April 15, 2024. ECF 23 No. 3 at 4. I warned plaintiff that failure to timely comply may result in a recommendation that the case 24 be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has failed to timely comply with my Order. 25 2 IT IS RECOMMENDED that the case be dismissed. 4 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 5 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 6 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 7 determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 8 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 9 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 10 || failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 11 || Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 12 |} 1153, 1157 (th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 13 || Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 14 || change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 15 || or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 16 || result in dismissal of the action. 17 18 DATED this 19" day of April 2024. fe} / J?) jk 19 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED iP i \ fo Ming Dor United States Magystrate Judge 22 23 24 25