O'Neil v. O'Neil

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:20-cv-0652-JAD-BNW 4 Aimee Lynn O’Neil,

5 Plaintiff

6 v. Order Adopting Report & Recommendation, Denying 7 Charlene O’Neil, et al., Motions, and Dismissing Case

8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23] 9 10 11 Aimee Lynn O’Neil claims that her mother in Florida, aided by another woman in New 12 York, interfered with her ability to earn a living in Colorado, plotted to have her killed, had her 13 phone tapped, recruited her coworkers to stalk and intimidate her, and had men sexually harass 14 her, all “out of hate, jealousy and revenge.”1 To provide insight into her relationship with her 15 mother, O’Neill recounts a dark tale of childhood abuse and exploitation, murder, and grave- 16 switching. She sues for conspiracy, Fourth Amendment privacy violations, lost profits, and the 17 “intentional tort” of “hate,” and she has filed nearly a dozen motions, including ones for default, 18 summary judgment, injunctive relief, and leave to amend. 19 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler has screened O’Neil’s complaint. Highlighting 20 O’Neil’s more outrageous allegations, the magistrate judge found that they “describe fantastic 21 and delusional scenarios and do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”2 She adds 22 that, although O’Neil proposes amendments, they fail to cure the problems with her claims. She 23 recommends that I dismiss this action on that basis and deny all pending motions.3 24 25 1 ECF No. 1-1. 26 2 ECF No. 22 at 3. 27 3 Id. 28 1 1 The deadline for O’ Neil to object to that recommendation ran 15 days ago, and O’ Neil 2 || filed no objections. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 3 || unless objections are filed.”* Having reviewed the R&R, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 5 || Recommendation [ECF No. 22] is ADOPTED in its entirety. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that O’Neil’s motions for leave to amend [ECF Nos. 19, 7 are DENIED because amendment would be futile. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions [ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 23] are 9 || DENIED as moot. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE 11 || THIS CASE. 12 Dated: September 16, 2020 Ar = 13 US. Teun orsey 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 —___ 4 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas vy. Arn, 47 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 28