Coil v. Wolfson

Opinion

* * *

DAVID ANDREW COIL, Case No. 2:24-cv-00304-RFB-DJA

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

KELSEY BERNSTEIN, et al., Defendants.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) of the Honorable Daniel J. Albregts, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on April 3, 2025. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by April 17, 2025. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his claim for excessive bail and claim for legal malpractice against his civil counsel, as described in detail in Judge Albregt’s ECF No. 24 Report & Recommendation, within thirty days of the entry of this Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's (ECF No. 21) Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice: Plaintiff's actual innocence claim; Plaintiff's right-to-self-representation claim; 1] Plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claim; Plaintiff's speedy trial claim; Plaintiff's grand jury claim; Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim relating to his underlying criminal case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend: Plaintiff's claim for excessive bail; Plaintiffs claim for legal malpractice arising from his civil legal malpractice case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to file a third amended complaint, he 20) must do so within 30 days of the entry of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 22) acopy of this Order. DATED: May 20, 2025. ¢ 5 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-