REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY ALICE THEILER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Joseph Holland is currently confined at the King County Jail in Seattle, Washington. On February 2, 2017, plaintiff submitted to this Court for filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff identified the following claim in his complaint: "Intense Emotional Distress — in the City of Seattle, County of King Date 11-17-2016." (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff provided no further explanation of his claim in the body of his complaint, though an attachment to the complaint suggested that the claim arose out of an incident in which plaintiff's hand was caught in a door at the King County Jail and he suffered a broken left ring finger. (See Dkt. 1-1 at 1.) Plaintiff identified the City of Seattle, King County, and Corrections Officer Bush as defendants in his complaint, and he requested $250,000 in damages. (See Dkt. 1.)
On February 23, 2017, plaintiff submitted an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 4.) The Court granted plaintiff's application on February 27, 2017, and his complaint was filed. (See Dkts. 5, 6.) On the same date, this Court issued an Order declining to serve plaintiff's complaint and granting him leave to file an amended complaint correcting certain specified deficiencies. (Dkt. 7.) On March 17, 2017, the Court received a letter from plaintiff in which he expressed confusion over the fact that he had submitted a form demonstrating his inability to pay the filing fee, but then received an Order from the Court advising him that he was going to be charged anyway. (Dkt. 8.) Plaintiff indicated that he could not, and would not, pay the filing fee while he was incarcerated, and he therefore asked that this action be dismissed. (Id.)
On March 31, 2017, the Court issued an Order addressing plaintiff's request for dismissal. (Dkt. 9.) The Court explained therein that plaintiff would remain responsible for the filing fee whether or not he chose to proceed with this action, and inquired of plaintiff whether, in light of that fact, he would prefer to proceed with this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was directed to either file an amended complaint consistent with the Order declining to serve his original complaint, or to advise the Court that he wished to dismiss this action, not later than May 1, 2017. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to communicate his intention to the Court in a timely fashion, the Court would dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. The Court has received no further communication from plaintiff since the issuance of that Order. Accordingly, this Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within