Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al.

D. Nevada

Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al.

DecidedNovember 21, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01591

StatusUnknown

This text of Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al. (Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al.) 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

Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BYRON HARMON, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01591-GMN-EJY 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND BRETT WAGGONER, et al., RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 14), 10 of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. The R&R orders some of Plaintiff’s 11 claims dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (See R&R 8:17–27, ECF No. 14). 12 For the claims which were dismissed with leave to amend, the R&R ordered that Plaintiff must 13 so amend “no later than October 3, 2025.” (Id. 9:4–5). That date has now passed, and no 14 amended complaint was filed, which the Court construes as Plaintiff abandoning his case. The 15 R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. 9:23– 16 10:6). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 17 (ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), be dismissed without 18 prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, (ECF No. 9), be denied. (Id. 19 10:7–16). 20 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 21 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 22 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 23 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 24 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 25 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 1 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 2 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 3 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 4 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 5 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 6 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 8 No. 14) (setting an October 4, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, the Court adopts 9 the R&R in full. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 14), is 12 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with 14 prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline: Plaintiff’s 15 claims asserted against Aaron Ford; Plaintiff’s Monell claims asserted against Nye County and 16 Pahrump Township; and Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against the individual 17 defendants. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with 19 prejudice based on Judge Youchah’s recommendation: Plaintiff’s claims against the State of 20 Nevada, the Nye County Manager Brett Waggoner, Nye County Commissioners Jabour, 21 Boskovich, Strickland, Koenig, and Bayne, Nye County Code Enforcement Officer Gancarz, 22 and Nye County District Attorney Kunzi; Plaintiff’s Count 1 (alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983), Count 2 (alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241), and Count 3 (alleging a violation of 24 42 U.S.C. § 242); Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against Nye County and Pahrump

25 Township; and Plaintiff’s Trespass on Rights to Liberty and Property claim. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 2 ||(ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), are DENIED as MOOT. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF 4 || No. 9) is DENIED as MOOT. 5 Because all of Plaintiff's claims are now dismissed, the Court kindly directs the Clerk of 6 || Court to close the case. 7 Dated this 21 day of November, 2025. yp, 9 Gloria M. NaWarro, District Judge 10 United we District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3

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 BYRON HARMON, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01591-GMN-EJY 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND BRETT WAGGONER, et al., RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 14), 10 of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. The R&R orders some of Plaintiff’s 11 claims dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (See R&R 8:17–27, ECF No. 14). 12 For the claims which were dismissed with leave to amend, the R&R ordered that Plaintiff must 13 so amend “no later than October 3, 2025.” (Id. 9:4–5). That date has now passed, and no 14 amended complaint was filed, which the Court construes as Plaintiff abandoning his case. The 15 R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. 9:23– 16 10:6). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 17 (ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), be dismissed without 18 prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, (ECF No. 9), be denied. (Id. 19 10:7–16). 20 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 21 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 22 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 23 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 24 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 25 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 1 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 2 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 3 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 4 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 5 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 6 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 8 No. 14) (setting an October 4, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, the Court adopts 9 the R&R in full. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 14), is 12 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with 14 prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline: Plaintiff’s 15 claims asserted against Aaron Ford; Plaintiff’s Monell claims asserted against Nye County and 16 Pahrump Township; and Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against the individual 17 defendants. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with 19 prejudice based on Judge Youchah’s recommendation: Plaintiff’s claims against the State of 20 Nevada, the Nye County Manager Brett Waggoner, Nye County Commissioners Jabour, 21 Boskovich, Strickland, Koenig, and Bayne, Nye County Code Enforcement Officer Gancarz, 22 and Nye County District Attorney Kunzi; Plaintiff’s Count 1 (alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983), Count 2 (alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241), and Count 3 (alleging a violation of 24 42 U.S.C. § 242); Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against Nye County and Pahrump

25 Township; and Plaintiff’s Trespass on Rights to Liberty and Property claim. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 2 ||(ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), are DENIED as MOOT. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF 4 || No. 9) is DENIED as MOOT. 5 Because all of Plaintiff's claims are now dismissed, the Court kindly directs the Clerk of 6 || Court to close the case. 7 Dated this 21 day of November, 2025. yp, 9 Gloria M. NaWarro, District Judge 10 United we District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byron-harmon-v-brett-waggoner-et-al-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack