Timothy William Bieler v. State of Nevada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00652
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 TIMOTHY WILLIAM BIELER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00652-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 3).

8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

9 Defendants.

10 Before the Court is Mr. Bieler’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 11 (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1), and motion for a name change (ECF No. 1-1.) Magistrate 12 Judge Carla L. Baldwin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 13 recommending that Mr. Bieler’s application to proceed IFP be granted, but that 14 his complaint be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 (ECF No. 3.) 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s R&R. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, 19 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 20 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's 21 report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de 22 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 23 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 24 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 25 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 26 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R and his 27 time to do so has now expired. (ECF No. 3.) 28 1 Il. ANALYSIS 2 The magistrate judge construes Mr. Bieler’s motion for a name change as 3 || acomplaint alleging a claim for a name under Nevada Revised Statute □□ □□□□□□□□□ 4 || 41.290. (ECF No. 3.) Mr. Bieler is seeking relief under Nevada law and lacks 5 || diversity and federal question jurisdiction. The Court additionally cannot exercise 6 || supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Bieler’s claim. Therefore, his complaint should 7 || be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 It is therefore ordered that Mr. Martin’s application to proceed in forma 10 || pauperis, (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 11 It is further ordered that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 1-1) but 12 || not issue summons at this time. 13 It is further ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED without leave to 14 || amend. 15 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk CLOSE this case. 16 17 Dated this 13 day of January, 2026. 18

20 ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28