Knight v. City of Elko
Opinion
1 2
5 * * *
6 WADE ALAN KNIGHT, Case No. 3:22-cv-00343-ART-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CITY OF ELKO, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Wade Alan Knight (“Knight”) brings this action under 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has submitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis, 13 (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5), and a civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Before the Court 14 is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 15 States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 6), recommending that: 1) 16 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications (ECF No. 1, 4, 5), be denied as moot; 2) 17 the Clerk file Knight’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1); and 3) Plaintiff’s complaint, (ECF 18 No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. Plaintiff 19 had until September 29, 2022 to file an objection. Plaintiff filed an objection on 20 September 26, 2022, but the objection did not contain any arguments on the 21 merits. Instead, Plaintiff explained 1) his lack of access to a law library sufficient 22 to research Younger Abstention; 2) his understanding that Judge Baldwin 23 ordered the complaint to be dismissed because of his ongoing criminal 24 proceeding; and 3) his request for a copy of his original complaint. (ECF No. 7). 25 Because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis as to Plaintiff’s Motions, 26 the Court adopts the R&R, and will take the recommended actions. 27 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 28 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 1 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 2 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 3 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 4 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 5 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 6 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 7 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 8 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 9 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 10 Because there is no objection to the merits of Judge Baldwin’s Report and 11 Recommendation, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied 12 Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends 1) Plaintiff’s 13 in forma pauperis applications (ECF No. 1, 4, 5), be denied as moot; 2) the Clerk 14 file Knight’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1); and 3) Plaintiff’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1) 15 be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. (ECF N0.6). Judge 16 Baldwin recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because 17 Plaintiff has an ongoing criminal case, and all of the prerequisites of Younger 18 abstention doctrine are met. (ECF No. 6 at 4). Because Judge Baldwin 19 recommends dismissing the complaint, she also recommends the Court deny as 20 moot Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications. (ECF No. 6 at 2). The Court agrees 21 with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the 22 Court will adopt the R&R in full. 23 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 24 (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 25 It is further ordered that the in forma pauperis applications, (ECF Nos. 1, 26 4, 5), be denied as moot. 27 It is further ordered that the Clerk file Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 1-1). 28 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk send Plaintiff a copy of his complaint 2 || (ECF No. 1-1). 3 It is further ordered that the complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed 4 || without prejudice, but without leave to amend. 5 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. 6 7 DATED THIS 19t® Day of July 2023. 8 9 Aras jlosed Wen 10 ANNE R.TRAUM ———<“C—sC 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Knight v. City of Elko (Knight v. City of Elko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.