James J. Sharp v. X Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 James J. Sharp, Case No. 2:25-cv-02252-CDS-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Accepting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and 5 v. Dismissing Case

6 X Corporation, et al.,

7 Defendants [ECF No. 4] 8 9 James Sharp initiated this action against the X social media platform and Elon Musk by 10 filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis alongside his complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. United 11 States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 12 issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss this case because the “complaint is 13 frivolous and delusional and does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” R&R, 14 ECF No. 4. The R&R also notes that 17 U.S.C. § 230, the Communications Decency Act, does 15 not create a private right of action. Id. at 3, n.2. Judge Koppe reasons that “[d]istrict courts have 16 the authority to dismiss cases sua sponte without notice when the plaintiff ‘cannot possibly win 17 relief.’” Id. at 2. (citing Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988)). 18 Sharp had until December 17, 2025, to file any specific written objections to the R&R. Id. 19 at 4 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to the magistrate judge’s 20 findings and recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see 21 also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (same). Here, no objection is filed and the time to do so has passed. 22 The law is clear that “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 23 unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also 24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district 25 court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections are filed. United 26 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 3|| [ECF No. 4] is adopted in full. Sharp’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 4 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgmens accordingly and to close this case. /, } é 6 Dated: December 23, 2025 LZ 8 Cris nay). Silva . U ret States District Judge 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26