Woods v. Investment Realty Advisons

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 3, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00477
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Terryett O. Woods, Case No. 2:24-cv-00477-CDS-NJK

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

7 Investment Realty Advisors, [ECF Nos. 1, 3]

8 Defendant

9 10 Plaintiff Terryett Woods brings this lawsuit against defendant Investment Realty 11 Advisors, alleging that it refuses to return his security deposit. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Woods 12 asserts that his maintenance requests were ignored and the manager never warned him that 13 smoking inside the apartment was prohibited. Id. 14 Upon screening Woods’ complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), 15 Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe recommends that I dismiss the complaint without leave to 16 amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Report and Recommendation (R&R), ECF No. 3. 17 Judge Koppe also recommends that Woods’ request to proceed IFP be denied a moot. Id. 18 The deadline for Woods to object to that recommendation was April 24, 2024. See LR IB 19 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file objections within fourteen 20 days); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As of the date of this order, Woods has neither objected to the 21 R&R nor requested more time to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 22 recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 23 Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Still, having reviewed Judge Koppe’s R&R, I agree with her findings. Woods’ complaint 26 does not establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction because it identifies no federal cause of 1 or federal question. See generally Compl., ECF No. Given the failure to establish subject 2 jurisdiction, the complaint must be dismissed. See Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. 3 ||Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) (“It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua 4 |lsponte for lack of jurisdiction.”). Consequently, Woods’ application to proceed IFP must be 5 ||denied as moot. 6 Conclusion 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Judge Koppe’s R&R [ECF No. 3] is ADOPTED 8 |/in its entirety. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; and Woods’ 10 ||application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this 12 -) B Dated: May 3, 2024 /, / 14 , A 15 Cristin □ Silva Uni ed States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26