United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI, Plaintiff,
CHARLES “CHIP” WILSON, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING THE APRIL 8, 2016 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES
Derrick K. Watson Judge
On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), suggesting that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and deny Plaintiff William K. Oyadomari’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). Dkt. No. 5. Before the Court is Oyadomari’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R. Dkt. No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the April 8, 2016 F&R, DISMISSES the action without prejudice, and DENIES Oyadomari’s Application.
On March 30, 2016, Oyadomari, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant Charles Wilson cashed Oyadomari’s Social Security check without permission while Oyadomari was incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint is difficult to decipher, but Oyadomari states that Wilson was his “rep-payee for Social Security”; that check fraud is a federal offense; that he had to “forfeit one social security check to payback federal social security”; and that his total payback was $741.00. Id. In addition, Oyadomari alleges that he made a police report and that Wilson admitted that he cashed Oyadomari’s check in front of Honolulu Police Department officers, but because Wilson is an informant for the police, the police refused to apprehend Wilson for check fraud. Id. at 1-2. Oyadomari requests reimbursement from and “possible jail time sentencing” for Wilson. Id. at 2.
On April 6, 2016, Oyadomari filed his Application, which stated that he is unemployed, receives $721.00 a month from Social Security, and has monthly obligations totaling $550.00 for rent, telephone service, and child support. Dkt. No. 4.
On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered his written F&R, in which he determined that, based on the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5 at 3-5. Because Oyadomari is proceeding pro se, however, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that Oyadomari be granted leave to amend. Dkt. No. 5 at 5. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Oyadomari’s Application be denied and that he be given leave to file another Application if he chooses to file an amended complaint. Id.
On April 25, 2016, Oyadomari filed what he characterized as “objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R. Dkt. No. 6. Those objections provide in full:
1. I Mistakenly wrote Charles Wilson committed fraud. Not By cashing My checking Being My Repayee, But By Knowing I was incarcerated, and cashing My Check with that In mind. ALSO To spend it knowing I was Incarcerated.
2. I’m suing Charles Wilson for the $710.00 from June 2015, from My Social Security check. ALSO The State Made Me pay back that $710.00, so I’M suing Charles Wilson for the entire amount to Be pa[id] Back is $1, 420.00.
There was no response to Oyadomari’s objections.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which the objections are made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Under a de novo standard, this court reviews “the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision previously had been rendered.” Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the district court need not hold a de novo hearing, it is the court’s obligation to arrive at its own independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate ...