Gonzalez v. Pennell

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 CIRO GONZALEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00500-ART-CSD

6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. 7 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 MATTHEW PENNELL, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Ciro Gonzalez sued public defenders Matthew Pennell, 12 Kirsty Pickering, Nestor Marcial, Lauren Gorman, and private investigator 13 Nicholas Czegledi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Magistrate Judge 14 Denney issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that 15 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants be dismissed without prejudice because 16 public defenders, when engaged in general representation of a criminal 17 defendant, cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 18 U.S. 42, 53 (1992) (citing Polk Cnty. V. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312). 19 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 20 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 21 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's 22 report and recommendation, the court is required to “make a de 23 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 24 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 25 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 26 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 27 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to Judge Denney’s report and 28 1 || recommendations and his time to do so has now expired. (See ECF No. 4.) 2 || Conclusion 3 The Court therefore adopts Judge Denney’s report and recommendation 4 || (ECF No. 4) in full. 5 In accordance with that report and recommendation, the Court dismisses 6 || Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice and with leave to amend 7 || within 30 days of entry of this order. 8 Additionally, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion to produce video 9 || surveillance evidence (ECF No. 3) as moot. 10 11 DATED THIS 13th day of February 2025. 12 13 i en 14 , foe Vaated lam 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28