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

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2

3 ALAN MOORE,

4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01358-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 6 CLARK COUNTY CORONER, et. al., RECOMMENDATION

7 Defendants. 8 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), of 10 United States Magistrate Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s 11 ineffective assistance of counsel claims and claims attacking the fundamental fairness of his 12 trial or conviction without prejudice and without leave to amend. She further recommends that 13 Plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they attack his incarceration and to the extent Plaintiff sues 14 individual defendants in their official capacities for money damages, be dismissed with 15 prejudice. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 20 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 21 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 22 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 23 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 24 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 25 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 1 || district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 2 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 4 || No. 4) (setting an August 18, 2025, deadline for objections). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is 7 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims, to the extent they attack his 9 || incarceration, be DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by Heck v. Humphrey. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff sues the individual defendants 11 their official capacities for money damages, those claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim, to the extent they seek to assert a 13 || Sixth Amendment violation based on ineffective assistance of his counsel, the claim be 14 || DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to amend in this case. Plaintiff must bring 15 || this claim through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims attacking the fundamental fairness 17 || of his trial or his conviction, such claims be DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave 18 || to amend in this case. Plaintiff must bring these claims through a habeas petition under 28 19 |] U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Dated this 21. day of October, 2025. Gl Gloria M. Yaaro District Judge 23 United States’District Court 24 25

Page 2 of 2