Bowman v. LV Metropolitan Police Dept.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PRISCELLA SAINTAL BOWMAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01481-ART-NJK

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 LV METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pro se Plaintiff Priscella Bowman (“Bowman”) brings this action under 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe (ECF No. 14 11), recommending that that all claims against the Nevada Board of Parole 15 Commissioners members be dismissed. For the reasons set forth below the Court 16 will adopt the R&R in full. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 19 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 20 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 21 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 22 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 23 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 24 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 25 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 26 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 27 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 1 Plaintiff objects to the R&R and thus the Court conducts de novo review. 2 || The Court, having conducted de novo review agrees with Magistrate Judge Koppe 3 || that Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners members are absolutely immune || from being sued for damages. The Ninth Circuit has held “that absolute 5 || immunity extends to parole officials for the imposition of parole conditions 6 || because that task is integrally related to an official's decision to grant or revoke 7 || parole, which is a quasi-judicial function.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 840 8 || (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004)). 9 || The unnamed members of the Board of Parole Commissioners were acting in 10 || their official capacity when they imposed the challenged parole condition on 11 || Plaintiff. 12 Accordingly, the Court finds that they are immune from being sued for 13 || damages, and Plaintiffs claims against them must be dismissed. Having 14 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 15 || full. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s Report and 17 || Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is accepted and adopted in full; 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against the Nevada Board of 19 || Parole Commissioners members be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 20 21 DATED THIS 12t# Day of July 2023. 22 23 An plod de 24 ANNE R. TRAUM 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28