Williams v. Nevada Highway Patrol

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00164
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 KEON-MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER

8 v.

9 NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiffs Keon-Michael Williams, Robert Walker, and Quentin Gibson bring 13 this action against Defendants Nevada Highway Patrol, Jesse Cornett, K. Itskin, and 14 Fallon Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the 15 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin 16 (ECF No. 8), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in 17 forma pauperis (“IFP Applications”) (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7) as moot, and dismiss the 18 Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice. Objections to the R&R were due July 29, 19 2022. To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the 20 Court adopts the R&R in full. 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 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 were no objections, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 || and is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Judge Baldwin correctly found that 5 || pro se Plaintiffs may not proceed jointly in this lawsuit without the representation of 6 || licensed counsel. (ECF No. 8 at 4.) See Martinez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 729 P.2d 7 || 487, 488 (Nev. 1986); Salman v. Newell, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (Nev. 1994); Russell v. United 8 || States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 665 9 || (9th Cir. 2008). However, each pro se Plaintiff may pursue his claims in his own, separate 10 || action. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without 11 || prejudice, and deny Plaintiffs’ IFP Applications (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7) as moot. 12 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 13 || No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ IFP Applications are denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 15 || 1, 5, 6, 7.) 16 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 19 || No other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. 20 DATED THIS 29" Day of August 2022.

22 MIRANDA MDU 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28