Jasso-Martinez v. Rodriguez Lara

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 CLODUALDO JASSO-MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-00185-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ LARA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez brings this action against Defendants 13 Maria Elena Rodriguez Lara, Martha Lucero Rodriguez Lara, Luis Fernando Rodriguez 14 Lara, and the Family Division of the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada. (ECF No. 15 8.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 16 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 13), recommending that the Court dismiss 17 the case with prejudice and deny Jasso-Martinez’s petition to prosecute this action to trial. 18 Jasso-Martinez’s objection to the R&R was due October 5, 2022. To date, no objection 19 has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 22 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 23 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 24 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 25 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 26 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 27 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there was no objection to the R&R, the Court need not conduct de novo 4 || review, and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. Judge Denney previously 5 || screened Jasso-Martinez’s complaint and granted him leave to amend to address the 6 || deficiencies in the complaint. (ECF No. 5.) However, Jasso-Martinez has failed to cure 7 || the deficiencies in his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) The Amended Complaint is 8 || confusing, contains conclusory and vague statements, and does not include sufficient 9 || factual matter. (/d.) See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. 10 || Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Hence, Judge Denney correctly found that Jasso- 11 || Martinez failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the Court adopts 12 || the R&R in full. (ECF No. 13.) 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 14 || No. 13) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that Jasso-Martinez’s petition to prosecute (ECF No. 12) is 16 || denied. 17 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice, as amendment is 18 || futile. 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 20 DATED THIS 7" Day of October 2022.

22 MIRANDA M-DU 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28