Clarke v. City of North Las Vegas

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Karyl Clarke, Case No. 2:24-cv-01047-CDS-BNW

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

7 City of North Las Vegas, et al., [ECF No. 16]

8 Defendant

9 10 United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler previously screened plaintiff Karyl 11 Clarke’s complaint. Screening order, ECF No. 10. In that order, Judge Weksler gave Clarke the 12 opportunity to file an amended complaint. Id. at 6. Clarke chose to file his first amended 13 complaint on July 19, 2024. ECF No. 11. Now, following a review of Clarke’s amended complaint, 14 Judge Weksler issued a second screening order and report and recommendation (R&R). ECF 15 No. 16. Therein, Judge Weksler recommends that some of Clarke’s claims be dismissed with 16 prejudice and others without leave to amend. Id. at 16–19. Clarke had until March 31, 2025, to file 17 any objections to the R&R. Id. at 4 (citing LR IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to 18 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, must file specific written objections 19 within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). To date, Clarke has not objected 20 to the order or the recommendations nor has he requested more time to do so. “[N]o review is 21 required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt 22 v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 23 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having made an 24 independent review, I find the R&R well-reasoned and agree with the magistrate judge’s 25 conclusions. So I accept the recommendations and adopt the report as set forth below. 26 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 16] is accepted in its entirety, therefore: 4 e Claim 1 (Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure), Claim 2 (Fourth Amendment 5 false arrest), Claim 3 (Fourth Amendment excessive force), and Claim 4 (Fourth 6 Amendment unreasonable search) as to defendants Sergeant Steven Wiest and 7 Officer F. del Toro, in their official capacity, are dismissed with prejudice. 8 e Claim 10 (violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by neglecting to prevent harm) is 9 dismissed without leave to amend. 10 e Claim 1 (violation of § 1983 conspiracy) as to the City of North Las Vegas and the North Las Vegas Police Department is dismissed without leave to amend. 12 e Claim 12 (violation of $ 1983 federal civil rights) and Claim 13 (violation of § 1983 13 peace officer liability) as to defendants Sergeant Steven Wiest and Officer F. del 14 Toro are dismissed without leave to amend. 15 e Claim 15 (violation of § 1983 municipal liabibty) is dismissed without leave to 16 amend. /, 7 Dated: May 14, 2025 LZ 18 ZL 7 — Cristina D. Silva 19 njced States District Judge 20 / 21 22 23 24 25 26