Richards v. First Response Towing

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 LARRY RICHARDS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00154-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 FIRST RESPONSE TOWING, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Larry Richards brings this action under the Racketeer Influences 12 and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., against an unknown owner 13 of a towing company, the towing company First Response Towing (both Reno and Las 14 Vegas divisions), and the City of Reno Police Department. (ECF No. 16.) Before the Court 15 is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 16 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 17), recommending the Court dismiss 17 Richards’ federal claims with prejudice and any state law claims without prejudice so that 18 Richards may raise them in state court if he chooses. Richards had until August 2, 2022, 19 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and 20 as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss Richards’ Complaint. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 27 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 28 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 4 || satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. On June 8, 2022, the Court dismissed 5 || Richards’ Complaint, with leave to amend, after screening the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 15.) The Court reasoned that Richards could not proceed with his 7 || RICO claims, and that the Court accordingly would lack jurisdiction over any state law 8 || claims Richards was attempting to assert. (/d.) Richards had 30 days within which to file 9 || an amended complaint, or face dismissal. (/d.) Because Richards did not file an amended 10 || complaint or file any other communication with the Court, Judge Denney recommends 11 || the Court dismiss this action. (ECF No. 17.) Judge Denney further recommends that any 12 || state law claims Richards is attempting to assert be dismissed without prejudice so that 13 || Richards may pursue them in state court should he so choose. (/d.) The Court agrees 14 || with Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will 15 || adopt the R&R in full. 16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 17 || No. 17) is accepted and adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that Richards’ federal law claims are dismissed with prejudice. 19 Itis further ordered that Richards’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, 20 || but without leave to amend, so that Richards may pursue them in state court if he chooses 21 || todoso. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 23 || If Richards wishes to pursue any claims under Nevada state law, he must file a new 24 || action. No further documents may be filed in this now closed case. 25 DATED THIS 8" Day of August 2022. 26 A C { ) 27 MIRANDA M. DU —

28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE