Charles Francis Dowling v. Kevin McMahill, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00774
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Charles Francis Dowling, Case No. 2:25-cv-00774-CDS-EJY

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

7 Kevin McMahill, et al., [ECF No. 3] 8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Charles Dowling brings this civil-rights lawsuit against Sheriff Kevin McMahill, 11 the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and two of its employees. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. 12 Dowling filed his complaint alongside an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No 1. United 13 States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah screened the complaint and issued a report and 14 recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss with prejudice Dowling’s 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and Fourteenth 15 Amendment claims. Order and R&R, ECF No. 3. 16 Dowling had until November 19, 2025, to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s 17 R&R. Id. at 7 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating that parties wishing to object to the findings and 18 recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(C) (same). That deadline passed without any objection from Dowling.1 Although “no 20 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed,” I 21 nonetheless make an independent review here.2 22 23

24 1 The court notes that Judge Youchah’s order and report & recommendation was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. It appears that Dowling was released from the Clark County 25 Detention Center but did not update his address in accordance with Local Rule IA 3-1 (requiring parties to immediately file a written notification of any change of mailing address). Failure to comply with the local 26 rules may result in sanctions, to include dismissal of this action. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 27 2 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Judge Youchah recommends dismissing Dowling’s § 3771 claims because the statute does 2 ||not confer a private right of action. ECF No. 3 at 4. I agree. Dowling alleges that his rights under 3||the Crime Victims Act (CVRA) were violated. Not only does the statute explicitly provide that it 4 ||does not authorize a cause of action for damages, but courts have also found that the CVRA 5 ||“provides a mechanism for judicial enforcement only in the context of a preexisting proceeding.” 6 || In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244, 1259 (1th Cir. 2021); Doe v. United States Dist. Court, 50 F.4th 1247, 1251-52 7 || (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Wild); see also Williams v. United States DO], 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177318, at *1 8||(D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2021) (same). Because Dowling has not asserted that an underlying criminal 9 || proceeding is underway in the district court, and because § 3771 does not authorize a stand-alone 10 || civil action, his claims are dismissed with prejudice as amendment is futile. Next, the magistrate judge broadly construed Dowling’s third claim under $ 3771 as an 12 deficiency in the administrative grievance system. ECF No. 3 at 5. Judge Youchah 13 ||recommends dismissal of this claim because, given the absence of a Fourteenth Amendment right, 14 fails as a matter of law. Id. Lagree that allegations that officials denied or failed to adequately 15 ||respond to grievances, without more, do not raise a constitutional violation. Further, as discussed 16 the CVRA does not provide a private right of action for damages. So Dowling’s third cause 17 action is dismissed with prejudice as amendment is futile. 18 Conclusion 19 It is hereby ordered that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 3] is 20 ||accepted and adopted in full, therefore Dowling’s 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and Fourteenth 21|/Amendment claims are dismissed with prejudice. ‘) 22 Dated: November 20, 2025 /, / 23 LZ 24 Cristina 4 te Uni egprrates District Judge 25 [ 26 ‘

27 28 XY