Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al.

D. Nevada

Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al.

DecidedNovember 14, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01042

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al. (Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Wilson Earl Love, Case No. 2:25-cv-01042-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Closing Case 6 v.

7 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF No. 10]

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Wilson Love initiated this lawsuit by filing an application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (IFP) alongside his complaint. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-1. United States Magistrate Judge 12 Nancy J. Koppe granted Love’s IFP application, screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(e)(2), and dismissed Love’s claims with leave to amend. Order, ECF No. 5. After screening 14 Love’s amended complaint, Judge Koppe issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I 15 dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice because Love’s claims are barred by the Heck 16 doctrine and the statute of limitations, and because Love fails to adequately plead a civil rights 17 claim. R&R, ECF No. 10 at 3 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994)). 18 Love had until October 31, 2025, to file any objections to the R&R. Local Rule IB 3-2(a) 19 (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file specific written objections with 20 supporting points and authorities within fourteen days); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 21 (same). Love has neither objected to the R&R nor requested more time to do so. Thus, “no 22 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 23 filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 24 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). I nonetheless reviewed 25 the magistrate judge’s findings and agree with the analysis and conclusion. So I accept the R&R 26 in full. 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 3] R&R [ECF No. 10] is accepted and adopted in its entirety. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 5 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this 6]| case. /, ) / 7 Dated: November 14, 2025 LZ Cristiha B. Silva 9 Uni d States District Judge 10 / ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Wilson Earl Love, Case No. 2:25-cv-01042-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Closing Case 6 v.

7 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF No. 10]

8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Wilson Love initiated this lawsuit by filing an application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (IFP) alongside his complaint. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-1. United States Magistrate Judge 12 Nancy J. Koppe granted Love’s IFP application, screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(e)(2), and dismissed Love’s claims with leave to amend. Order, ECF No. 5. After screening 14 Love’s amended complaint, Judge Koppe issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I 15 dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice because Love’s claims are barred by the Heck 16 doctrine and the statute of limitations, and because Love fails to adequately plead a civil rights 17 claim. R&R, ECF No. 10 at 3 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994)). 18 Love had until October 31, 2025, to file any objections to the R&R. Local Rule IB 3-2(a) 19 (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file specific written objections with 20 supporting points and authorities within fourteen days); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 21 (same). Love has neither objected to the R&R nor requested more time to do so. Thus, “no 22 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 23 filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 24 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). I nonetheless reviewed 25 the magistrate judge’s findings and agree with the analysis and conclusion. So I accept the R&R 26 in full. 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 3] R&R [ECF No. 10] is accepted and adopted in its entirety. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 5 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this 6]| case. /, ) / 7 Dated: November 14, 2025 LZ Cristiha B. Silva 9 Uni d States District Judge 10 / ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson Earl Love v. State of Nevada, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-earl-love-v-state-of-nevada-et-al-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack