REPORTED AND RECOMMENDATION

LESLIE A. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is a motion to unseal filed by the United States on April 6, 2015. (Doc. 16)

On October 14, 2014, the relator, David Lee Laskiewicz, filed this pro se qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730. (Doc. 1) On April 6, 2015, the United States filed notice that it does not intend to intervene in this action. (Doc. 16) It further moves that this court unseal the complaint and lift the seal as to all other matters occurring in this action. Id.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this court, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for report and recommendation. LRCiv 72.1.

Discussion

In its notice declining intervention, the government noted that the relator, Laskiewicz, is permitted to prosecute this action himself on behalf of the United States if he so chooses. (Doc. 16) He may not, however, prosecute the action pro se. See, e.g., Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Our conclusion that a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States is consistent with the decisions of other circuits to have addressed the issue.").

Accordingly, on April 16, 2015, this court informed Laskiewicz that if he intends to pursue this action he must retain counsel and have counsel enter an appearance by May 13, 2015. (Doc. 17) The court warned Laskiewicz that if he failed to comply with the court's order, this action would be unsealed and dismissed without further notice. Id.

The court's deadline has passed, and Laskiewicz has failed to comply with the court's order. (Doc. 17) Accordingly,

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order unsealing this case, denying outstanding motions as moot, and DISMISSING the action without prejudice. (Doc. 16)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The Local Rules permit a response to an objection. They do not permit a reply to a response.

The Clerk is instructed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff and the movant.