2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

* * * 8

9 STANLEY KUZMICKI, Case No. 3:18-cv-448-MMD-WGC

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHANNON ERNST, et al., WILLIAM G. COBB 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”) relating to pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 16 (ECF No. 6). (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 10), which the Court 17 overrules and accepts and adopts the R&R in full. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, 25 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 26 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 27 States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 3 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 4 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may 5 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 6 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection 7 was filed). 8 In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts claims for himself and on behalf of another individual— 9 Niki Kollias Rasneor (“Niki”). (ECF No. 6.) Judge Cobb recommends dismissing all claims 10 with prejudice. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff objects, asserting, among other things, that Judge 11 Cobb and this Court in its prior order accepting Judge Cobb’s R&R concerning his original 12 complaint (ECF No. 7) misrepresented Plaintiff’s allegations and have improperly applied 13 the applicable standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See generally 14 ECF No. 10.) To the extent Plaintiff disagrees with this Court’s prior order accepting the 15 R&R, Plaintiff filed the FAC before this Court issued its order, and the Court now considers 16 the FAC in full and overrules Plaintiff’s objections. 17 Magistrate Judge Cobb recommends dismissing the claims Plaintiff brings on 18 behalf of Niki for multiple reasons, including that Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney and 19 thus cannot assert claims on behalf of another person. (ECF No. 9 at 3.) This Court agrees 20 that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot represent Niki in a lawsuit. See, e.g., Hillygus v. 21 Doherty, Case No. 19-15137,

, at *1 (9th Cir. June 27, 2019) (dismissing 22 appeal as frivolous and noting “Appellant Roger Hillygus may not represent other 23 appellants because he is proceeding pro se”). 24 Judge Cobb additionally recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for 25 discrimination and retaliation asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 26 because Plaintiff fails to assert facts supporting that he was discriminated or retaliated 27 against “because of” his disability. (Id. at 4.) Upon reviewing the FAC, this Court agrees 28 that Plaintiff fails to state a colorable claim under the ADA. 2 concerning “all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable 3 legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (quoting Car Carriers, 4 Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,

(7th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original)). To 5 state a claim under Title II of the ADA for disability discrimination a plaintiff must allege 6 facts showing that: 1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either 7 excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs 8 or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such 9 exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

12132. A disability within the meaning of the statute is a “physical or mental 11 impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such 12 individual.”

. 13 Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has mental disabilities, but fails to allege facts 14 connecting purported acts of discrimination with his disability—i.e., that he was 15 discriminated against by reason of his disability. At most, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 16 Ernst and others unknown to him have knowledge of his disability and separately 17 discriminated against him. (ECF No. 10 at 6–9.) Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim which 18 may entitle him to relief under the ADA. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s 19 recommendation that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.1 20 The Court further recognizes that Plaintiff has moved to have another judicial 21 officer—aside from this judge or Judge Cobb—review this case. (ECF No. 11.) While 22 Plaintiff may disagree with the rulings in his case, the appropriate recourse for Plaintiff is 23 to appeal this Court’s decision. Disagreeing with a judge’s decision is not a proper basis 24 to seek the judge’s recusal. The Court therefore denies this motion. 25 /// 26 /// 27 1It appears Plaintiff may have also attempted to raise claims for violation of his free 28 speech in the FAC (ECF No. 6 at 10), however, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to support such a claim. 1 Itis therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation 2 || of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 9) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 3 || The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections. 4 It is further ordered that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is dismissed with 5 || prejudice. 6 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for a different judge (ECF No. 11) is 7 || denied. 8 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) 9 || is denied as moot. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 DATED THIS 19' day of September 2019. LO 13 MIRANDA M. DU 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28