2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ANTHONY BROOKS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00504-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 WASHOE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, et al. 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Anthony Brooks is an incarcerated person who has filed this civil rights 13 action pro se against his former public defenders for refusing to withdraw as his counsel 14 in his criminal case. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 15 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s in 16 forma pauperis (“IFP”) application (ECF Nos. 11, 18) be granted and that this action be 17 dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (ECF No. 21). For the 18 reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection and adopt the R&R 19 in full. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 23 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 24 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails 25 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 26 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 28 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 2 (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 3 the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 4 In light of Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R, this Court has engaged in a de novo 5 review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb recommended granting 6 Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF Nos. 11, 18) because Plaintiff’s certified account statement 7 indicates that his average monthly balance for the last six months was $55.81, and his 8 average monthly deposits were $16.50. (ECF No. 20 at 2). Judge Cobb also 9 recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice because Defendants did not 10 act under color of state law, as required for a claim under section 1983. (Id. at 4-7.) See 11 Polk County v. Dodson,

(1981). In fact, Judge Cobb repeatedly 12 warned Plaintiff of this. (See ECF Nos. 3, 17.) 13 Plaintiff’s sole objection is that the Court should dismiss his IFP application “to not 14 monetarily penalize him.” (ECF No. 21.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s misunderstanding, 28

(b)(1) requires that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in 16 forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee” 17 (emphasis added). Plaintiff has already filed this civil action and is therefore required to 18 pay the full filing fee of $350.00—regardless of whether the IFP application is granted.1 19 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation 20 of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 21 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 22 No. 18) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff is not required to pay 23 an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28

, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. 25 1The Court will note for Plaintiff’s benefit that, absent an IFP application, Plaintiff 26 would have been required to prepay the entire $400 fee for filing a civil action, which includes a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee. If an IFP application is granted, the 27 Plaintiff would only be required to pay the $350 filing fee in installments but not the $50 28 administrative fee—which is waived. 1 It is further ordered that, pursuant to

, as amended by the Prisoner 2 || Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk of the 3 || United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to 4 || the account of Anthony Brooks, #1148101 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) 5 || until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of 6 || this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of 7 || Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 8 It is further ordered that this Court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal from 9 || this order would not be taken “in good faith” pursuant to

(a)(3). 10 It is further ordered that all claims in the Amended Formal Complaint (ECF No. 14) 11 || are dismissed with prejudice. 12 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and 13 || close this case. 14 15 || DATED THIS 27" day of January 2020. 16 . 1] " MIRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28