Hamilton v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department

Opinion

3 Kevin Hamilton, Case No. 2:21-cv-01746-JAD-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 5 v. [ECF No. 7] 6 Las Vegas Metro Police Department, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 The magistrate judge has screened Plaintiff Kevin Hamilton’s Amended Complaint [ECF 9 No. 5] and recommends that I dismiss all claims and close this case.1 The deadline for Hamilton 10 to object to that recommendation was April 13, 2022, and he did not file anything or ask to 11 extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 12 recommendation unless objections are filed.”2 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, 13 I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 15 Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 16 The following claims are dismissed with prejudice: 17 • Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action alleging respondeat superior against AMR, Allied, 18 Sunrise and LVMPD, and claims seeking an award of money damages against all 19 Defendants acting in their official capacities; 20 21 1 ECF No. 7. 22 2 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 e Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim asserting a Miranda violation against LVMPD and 2 Doe Officers I and II; and 3 e Plaintiff's False Imprisonment-Fourth Amendment Claim against LVMPD, AMR, Allied, 4 and Sunrise. 5 The following claims are dismissed without prejudice but without leave to amend 6] because amendment would be futile: 7 e Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Doe Officers I and II, Allied security 8 guards Does III and IV, EMT Doe V, Abiog, Latifeci, Hansen, and Lovinger in 9 their individual capacities; and 10 e Plaintiffs Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim against Defendants 11 LVMPD Officers Does I and II, and Drs. Hansen. 12 Finally, Plaintiffs Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim against Defendants 13 Abiog, Latifeci, and Doe V is dismissed without prejudice to his ability to assert this common 141 law claim in state court. 15 Because no claims remain, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is 16] directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 17 hors 18 USS. DistrichJudge Jennifer A. Dorsey □ Dated: April 15, 2022 19 20 21 22 23