Anderson v. United States

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Kareen Anderson, Case No. 2:18-cv-02173-JAD-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and v. Recommendation and Denying 5 Request for Entry of Default United States,et al., 6 [ECF Nos.30,35] Defendants 7 8 Pro se plaintiff Kareen Anderson brings this action to redress constitutional violations 9 and torts that he claims he suffered during his 2016 arrest and detention at the Nevada Southern 10 Detention Center. Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah screened Anderson’s complaint, found that 11 Anderson’s Bivens action against FBI Agents Burke, Rowe, and Kennedy in their individual 12 capacities may proceed, along with his state-law negligence claims against Dr. Saavedra and 13 Nurse Ubina in their individual capacities, and against CoreCivic.1 But she recommends that I 14 dismiss with prejudice Anderson’s due-process claim in count 1; malicious-prosecution claim in 15 count 2; imputed-negligence claim in count 3; all claims for violations of Federal Rules of 16 Criminal Procedure4, 5, and 9; and his claims against Dr. Saavedra and Nurse Ubina in their 17 official capacities,as stated in counts 4 and 6.2 The deadline for objections to that 18 recommendation passed without an objectionor any request to extend the deadline to file one. 19 “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections 20 are filed.”3 21 22 1 ECF No. 35 at 13. 2 Id. at 14. 23 3 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 35] is ADOPTED in full; Anderson’s due-process claim in count 1; malicious- 3] prosecution claim in count 2; imputed-negligence claim in count 3; all claims for violations Al of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 4, 5, and 9; and his claims against Dr. Saavedra Nurse Ubina in their official capacities, as stated in counts 4 and 6, are DISMISSED 6] with prejudice. 7 In a motion mailed on October 9, 2019, Anderson requests that the court enter default 8|| judgment against the defendants.* In support of that request, he notes that some defendants had 9! been served with his amended complaint but failed to timely respond. Those defendants had 10]| filed a timely motion to extend their response deadline,* which the court granted.° The 11|| defendants’ deadline to respond to the amended complaint is now 10 days from today.’ Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for entry of default [ECF No. 30] is DENIED. Defendants have until December 9, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond to the claims that remain in the amended complaint as a result of the screening order [ECF No. 35] and 15]| this order. 16 Dated: November 27, 2019

18 U.S. District slacdienhce) Dorsey 19 20 21 * ECF No. 30. 22 > ECF No. 28. ECF No. 33.