State of Nevada v. Bernard-Ex

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 State of Nevada, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02114-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 5 v. Recommendation and Remanding Improperly Removed Case 6 Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., [ECF Nos. 4, 5, 13] 7 Defendant

8 Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex. was a defendant in a criminal case in the Las Vegas Justice 9 Court. Theorizing that his constitutional, civil, and intellectual-property rights were violated in 10 the course of his 2017 arrest and resulting prosecution, Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., 11 representing himself pro se, “removed” his criminal prosecution to this court and demands more 12 than $38 billion in damages.1 He has also filed motions “to dismiss” and for “summary 13 judgment,” seeking orders disposing of that state prosecution.2 14 Because Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex. applies to proceed in forma pauperis, the 15 magistrate judge screened his complaint and recommends that this case be remanded back to 16 state court because it was improperly removed.3 The deadline for Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex. 17 to object to that recommendation was January 24, 2025. Though he filed an appeal of that report 18 and recommendation to the Ninth Circuit (which will undoubtedly be dismissed as improper 19 because the magistrate judge’s recommendation is not appealable),4 he filed no objection to the 20 report and recommendation and did not ask to extend the deadline to do so. 21 1 ECF No. 1-4. 22 2 ECF Nos. 4, 5. 23 3 ECF No. 13. 4 ECF No. 14. The appeal was assigned Appellate Case Number 25-385. ECF No. 15. ] “District judges must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 2|| novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation [ECF No. 13] is adopted in full, THIS CASE IS REMANDED 5|| back to the Las Vegas Justice Court, Case No. 17F17046X, and all pending motions [ECF Nos. 4, 5] are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND and CLOSE 7| THIS CASE.

9 US. Districi ge Jennif cA) Dorsey Dated: January 28, 2025 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 5 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted).