Alan Moore v. Clark County Coroner, et. al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01358-GMN-EJY vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CLARK COUNTY CORONER, et. al., RECOMMENDATION

Defendants. Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), of United States Magistrate Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and claims attacking the fundamental fairness of his trial or conviction without prejudice and without leave to amend. She further recommends that Plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they attack his incarceration and to the extent Plaintiff sues individual defendants in their official capacities for money damages, be dismissed with prejudice. A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 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); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 4) (setting an August 18, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims, to the extent they attack his incarceration, be DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff sues the individual defendants their official capacities for money damages, those claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim, to the extent they seek to assert a Sixth Amendment violation based on ineffective assistance of his counsel, the claim be DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to amend in this case. Plaintiff must bring this claim through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims attacking the fundamental fairness of his trial or his conviction, such claims be DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to amend in this case. Plaintiff must bring these claims through a habeas petition under 28 ] U.S.C. § 2254. Dated this 21. day of October, 2025. Gl Gloria M. Yaaro District Judge United States’District Court

Page 2 of 2