Billy Chancey v. Paramount Pictures Productions

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01654
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Billy Chancey, Case No. 2:25-cv-01654-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Accepting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v.

7 Paramount Pictures Productions, [ECF No. 20] 8 Defendant

9 10 Plaintiff Billy Chancey filed a complaint without paying the required filing fee or 11 submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). I therefore ordered Chancey to either 12 file an IFP application or pay the civil filing fee. Order, ECF No. 3. In turn, Chancey sought 13 additional time more time to comply, ECF Nos. 4, 6, which I granted, ECF No. 8. After the 14 November 21, 2025 deadline passed without compliance, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. 15 Couvillier issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss this case for Chancey’s failure 16 to comply. R&R, ECF No. 20. 17 Chancey had fourteen days—until February 20, 2025—to file any specific, written 18 objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R. Id. at 3–4 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating that parties 19 wishing to object to the findings and recommendations must file specific written objections within 20 fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). That deadline also passed, and Chancey 21 has not objected to the recommendation of dismissal. The law is clear that “no review is required of 22 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 23 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Although de novo review is not required, I 25 nonetheless make an independent review here. 26 1 Federal law requires a party initiating a civil lawsuit to pay a filing fee and an 2||administrative fee. 28 U.S.C. $$ 1914(a), (b). However, if a plaintiff is unable to pay such fees, 28 § 1915 allows a district court to authorize the commencement of a civil action through an IFP 4||application. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Indeed, a review of the record demonstrates that—despite 5||several opportunities to do so—Chancey did not submit an IFP application or pay the civil filing 6||fee. As a result, Judge Couvillier considered the Malone v. US. Postal Service factors and found they 7 || weighed in favor of dismissal. ECF No. 20 at 2-3 (citing 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). Lagree. So 8 accept the R&R in its entirety and dismiss this case. 9 Conclusion 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF 11|| No. 20] is accepted and adopted in full. 12 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to oni accordingly and close this case. 3 Dated: March 2, 2026 LZ /

Crigtind D. Siva 5 U inet States District Judge 16 □□ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26