Miller v. Southwest Gas Corporation

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Duhjuan L. Miller, Case No. 2:23-cv-00583-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & 6 v. Recommendation, Adopting the R&R, Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s Application to 7 Southwest Gas Corporation, et al., Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Closing this Case 8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14] 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Duhjuan Miller initiated this lawsuit by applying to proceed in forma 11 pauperis and complaint against defendants Southwest Gas Corporation and Rob Stefani. Appl., 12 ECF No. 1. Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe denied Miller’s application as incomplete and 13 ordered that he show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter 14 jurisdiction, as the parties all seemed to be residents of Nevada for diversity-of-citizenship 15 purposes. Order, ECF No. 3. Miller responded to the order to show cause but failed to allege any 16 information regarding Southwest Gas’s state of incorporation or the location of its principal 17 place of business, and it contained no information on the citizenship of Stefani. Resp., ECF No. 18 8. Because Miller failed to establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction, Judge Koppe found that he 19 failed to satisfy his burden and recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 20 ECF No. 9. Miller now objects to that recommendation. Objs., ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14. 21 I. Legal Standard 22 “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 23 or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute 25 makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 26 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). A magistrate judge’s order 1 should only be set aside if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3- 2 1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a 3 definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 4 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An order is 5 contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules of 6 procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 7 16, 2014). 8 II. Discussion 9 Miller’s objections are vague and generally non-responsive to Judge Koppe’s R&R. Miller 10 argues that he provided this court with evidence to allege breaches of contract and/or fiduciary 11 duties, but his allegations are difficult to discern and—even upon a liberal construction of his 12 arguments—fail to demonstrate any basis for jurisdiction. See generally, ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14. 13 Further, Miller did not cite legal authority or raise any argument to suggest any legal error in the 14 analysis performed by the R&R, thus Miller’s objections do not demonstrate that the magistrate 15 judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. 16 Because Miller fails to meet his jurisdictional burden, this court cannot exercise “judicial 17 [p]ower” over his case. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I find that the 18 Magistrate Judge’s R&R was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law in dismissing Miller’s 19 claims without prejudice. I thus overrule Miller’s objections and adopt the R&R in its entirety. 20 III. Conclusion 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the Report and 22 Recommendation [ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14] are OVERRULED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is 24 AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, Miller’s complaint is DISMISSED. 25 26 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 2|| No. 1] is DENIED as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and c age this case. 4 DATED June 28, 2023 7, / Li —— 6 cas a Silva . nite tates District Judge 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26