Vidal v. Lindsey

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01334-JAD-BNW 4 || Francisco Vidal, 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 6 || V. Recommendation 7 Lindsey, et al., 8 Defendants [ECF No. 33] 9 10 Plaintiff Francisco Vidal purports to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the public 11 || against various state officials, entities, and police officers. The magistrate judge has screened his 12 |}complaint and recommends that I dismiss his claims to the extent they are alleged on behalf of a 13 because the law prevents plaintiffs who represent themselves on a pro se basis from 14 || representing others in a class-action suit.’ Objections to that recommendation were due by 15 || December 1, 2020, and Vidal neither objected nor moved to extend that deadline. “[N]o review 16 ||is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is 18 || ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s class-action allegations are struck, and to the extent his claims are 19 || purportedly brought on behalf of anyone but himself, they are DISMISSED. 20 Dated: December 8, 2020 21 q CL as 2 UY istrict Jude Jie A. Dorsey 23 24 25 46 ||| ECF No. 33 at 3-4. 97 ||? Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 47 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 28