Harris v. United States

Opinion

3 TYLER HARRIS, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00380-GMN-BNW 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND UNITED STATES, RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendant. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), 10 from United States Magistrate Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing this case with 11 prejudice. Further pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Courts to File Evidence, 12 (ECF No. 6), and Motion to add Plaintiff “American Public,” (ECF No. 7). 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. L. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 19 the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. 20 L. R. IB 3-2(b). 21 Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. (Object., ECF No. 6). 22 The Court will therefore make a de novo determination as to whether Plaintiff’s case should be 23 dismissed without prejudice. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended dismissing 24 this case with prejudice because Plaintiff’s brings claims against the United States and seeks 25 $20 trillion in damages. (R&R 1:27–28). Because the United States is immune from suit 1 |}seeking money damages, Plaintiff's case against the United States cannot proceed. (R&R 1:27— 2 The R&R further explained that the allegations in the Complaint are indecipherable. (/d. 3 2:2-3). Plaintiffs Objection does not provide any legal sources refuting the proposition that 4 || the United States is generally immune from suits seeking money damages. 5 Reviewing Plaintiff’s Objection and the R&R de novo, the Court agrees with the 6 || Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The United States is generally immune from suits seeking 7 ||money damages. Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Hous. Serv. v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42, 48 (2024). 8 || Because Plaintiff only brings claims against the United States and seeks money damages from 9 it, his case cannot succeed. See id. Plaintiffs claims against the United States are therefore 10 || barred, and the legal deficiencies cannot be cured through amendment. The Court therefore 11 || agrees that his case should be dismissed with prejudice. And because the Court is dismissing 12 || the case, it also denies the Plaintiff’s two pending motions as moot. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 15 ||, ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Courts to File Evidence, (ECF 17 || No. 6), is DENIED as moot. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to add Plaintiff “American 19 || Public,” (ECF No. 7), is DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this case. 22 Dated this _30_ day of April, 2025. 23 Ly jf, 24 Zl Tb □□ Gloria M/ Navarro, District Judge 25 United dosh s District Court

Page 2 of 2