Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners

D. Nevada

Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 22, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00193·Unknown

Opinion

DARRYL G. BOWMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00193-GMN-EJY vs. ) ) ORDER NEVADA PAROLE BOARD ) ) Defendant. ) ) Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Darryl G. Bowman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), for failure to state a claim, and as a result, deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1). 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. Id. 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 Min. Order, ECF No. 3) (setting a February 21, 2023, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case. Dated this _2_2__ day of February, 2023. ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DARRYL G. BOWMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00193-GMN-EJY vs. ) ) ORDER NEVADA PAROLE BOARD ) ) Defendant. ) ) Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Darryl G. Bowman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), for failure to state a claim, and as a result, deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1). 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. Id. 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 Min. Order, ECF No. 3) (setting a February 21, 2023, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case. Dated this _2_2__ day of February, 2023. ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court

Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners (Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related