Pattison v. State of Nevada

Opinion

* * * DANTE PATTISON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00406-MMD-WGC

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 1) and “motion for leave to perpetuate existing evidence, documents and things prior to bringing new independent, equitable action obtaining relief from jud. for fraud upon the court” (ECF No. 1-1). The R&R also addresses Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his retaliation claim from Case No. 3:14-cv- 00020-MMD-VPC (ECF No. 3) and motion for order allowing deposition equipment to be received in prison (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff filed his objection on August 19, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and accepts the R&R for the following reasons. This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed). The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's IFP Application and dismissing this case because Plaintiff did not properly bring a complaint for relief. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint that names particular defendants and identifies causes of action. Rather, Plaintiff has filed a collection of motions related to another action, Case No. 3:14-cv-00020-MMD-VPC. (See ECF Nos. 1-1, 3, 4.) Plaintiff has filed similar motions in that closed case, which the Court has repeatedly denied as moot. (See, e.g., 3:14-cv-00020-MMD-VPC, ECF No. 170.) Plaintiff's objection provides no basis for relief. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is denied. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4) are denied. lt is further ordered that this action is dismissed and that the Clerk of the Court close this case. DATED THIS 20* day of August 2019. aN IRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2?