Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners

D. Nevada

Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners

DecidedFebruary 22, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00193

StatusUnknown

This text of Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners (Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DARRYL G. BOWMAN, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00193-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER NEVADA PAROLE BOARD ) 7 COMMISSIONERS, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), of 11 United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff 12 Darryl G. Bowman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), for failure to state a claim, and 13 as a result, deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 18 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 20 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 21 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, 22 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 23 judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 24 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 1 ECF No. 3) (setting a February 21, 2023, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 4 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), is 6 DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 8 (ECF No. 1), is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case. 10 Dated this _2_2__ day of February, 2023. 11 12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 13 United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DARRYL G. BOWMAN, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00193-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER NEVADA PAROLE BOARD ) 7 COMMISSIONERS, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), of 11 United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff 12 Darryl G. Bowman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), for failure to state a claim, and 13 as a result, deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 18 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 20 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 21 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, 22 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 23 judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 24 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 1 ECF No. 3) (setting a February 21, 2023, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 4 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), is 6 DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 8 (ECF No. 1), is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case. 10 Dated this _2_2__ day of February, 2023. 11 12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 13 United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bowman v. Nevada Parole Board Commissioners, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-nevada-parole-board-commissioners-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack