Goodrum v. State of Nevada

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM, Case No. 3:22-cv-00202-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Mitchell Keith Goodrum (“Goodrum”) brings this action 12 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 13 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig Denney 14 (ECF No. 6), recommending that this Court enter an order: granting Goodrum’s 15 motion (ECF No. 5); dismissing this case with prejudice; and denying as moot 16 Woodrum’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff had until June 22, 17 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For 18 this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 20 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 21 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 23 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 25 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 26 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 27 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 28 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Goodrum 5 initiated this action by filing a motion to move this case from the Tenth Judicial 6 District to the U.S. District Court. (ECF No. 1-1.) He subsequently filed a motion 7 for leave to amend along with a proposed amended civil rights complaint. (ECF 8 Nos. 3; 3-1.) Goodrum’s filing was not accompanied by an application to proceed 9 in forma pauperis (IFP) with the required financial certificate for an inmate or the 10 filing fee. On May 9, 2022, the court issued an order directing Goodrum to 11 submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee within 30 days and cautioned him 12 a failure to do so would result in dismissal of his action without prejudice. (ECF 13 No. 4.) On June 7, 2022, Woodrum filed a motion seeking to withdraw his 14 complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) Magistrate Judge Denney recommends 15 that Woodrum’s motion should be granted, and this case should be dismissed 16 with prejudice. 17 Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt 18 the R&R in full. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 20 Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw 22 Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF 24 No. 3) is DENIED as moot; 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH 26 PREJUDICE; and, 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall 2 || administratively close this case. 3 4 DATED THIS Day of September 2022. 5

7 ANNER.TRAUM ———