Liesegang v. Young

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CLAY LIESEGANG, Case No. 3:19-cv-00685-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MIKE YOUNG, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Clay Liesegang brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20), recommending the Court dismiss 14 the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff had until 15 September 11, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 16 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss this 17 action without prejudice. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s subsequent motion (ECF No. 18 21) as moot. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends the action be 3 || dismissed without prejudice because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, giving 4 || Plaintiff an opportunity to re-assert a claim in the correct court. (ECF No. 20 at 4-5.) The 5 || Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the 6 || Court will adopt the R&R in full. 7 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8 || 20) is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice. 10 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for a Court Date and a Subpoena Duces 11 || Tecum (ECF No. 21) is denied as moot. 12 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 DATED THIS 4"" Day of November 2020. 14 —

16 SRANOR RDO 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28