1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00714-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Heath Vincent Fulkerson sues Farmers Insurance Group, and its Reno, 12 Nevada-based agent John S. Barsanti, alleging they have violated Farmer’s company 13 policies, along with unspecified state and federal insurance laws, in processing an 14 insurance claim. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 15 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF 16 No. 7), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (“IFP 17 Application”), but dismiss this case, because Plaintiff alleges Farmers is a Nevada 18 corporation, which defeats Plaintiff’s allegation that the Court has diversity jurisdiction 19 over this case. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 20 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss this case. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 26 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 27 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States 1 judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file 2 objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself 4 that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 recommendation”). 6 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to grant 7 Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismiss this case, the Court will conduct a de novo review 8 to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb found that complete diversity is 9 lacking here because Plaintiff alleges Farmers is a Nevada corporation. (ECF No. 7 at 2- 10 3.) Judge Cobb therefore concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case, 11 and recommends that it be dismissed without prejudice so Plaintiff may re-assert his 12 claims in the correct court. (Id. at 3.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint (ECF 13 No. 1-1), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 17 No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action without prepaying the filing 18 fee or giving security therefor. This order granting IFP status does not extend to the 19 issuance of subpoenas at government expense. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 21 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s case is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice 22 but without leave to amend, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 2 case. 3 DATED THIS 7th day of January 2020. 4

5 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27