1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ZACKERY CRABTREE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00751-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 SHARON WEHRLY, 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Zackery Crabtree, currently incarcerated and in the custody of the 13 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) filed suit under

, alleging a 14 conspiracy to violate NRS § 453.3405 between the district attorney, judge, and county 15 sheriff involved in his criminal case—this case is focused on the county sheriff.1 (ECF No. 16 4.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 17 United States Magistrate Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 8), primarily recommending the Court 18 dismiss this case as malicious with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Baldwin’s 19 Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) As further explained below, the Court will overrule 20 Plaintiff’s objection because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis, will fully 21 adopt the R&R, and dismiss this case. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 As relevant to Plaintiff’s objection, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing this case 24 as malicious, with prejudice, because it is duplicative of Case No. 3:19-cv-00755-MMD- 25 CLB (the “755 Case”). (ECF No. 8 at 4.) She also recommends granting a document that 26 she construed as Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), and 27

28 1Plaintiff has filed four nearly identical cases. The other three are Case Nos. 3:19- 1 denying another motion Plaintiff filed (ECF No. 3) as moot. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff argues 2 in his objection that this case is not duplicative of the 755 Case because this case focuses 3 on Defendant Sheriff Wehrly. (ECF No. 9.) 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 7 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 8 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 9 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Because of Plaintiff’s objection to the 10 R&R, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of it, including the other documents filed 11 in this case. 12 IV. DISCUSSION 13 Following a de novo review of the R&R and the other records in this case, the Court 14 finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full. The Court addresses 15 below Plaintiff’s objection. 16 Plaintiff’s objection is meritless. Normally, multiple defendants should be sued in a 17 single case arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts. This case is malicious under 18

(d)-(e) because, as Judge Baldwin noted as to the 755 Case, and as 19 noted supra at 1 n.1, it is duplicative of three other pending cases Plaintiff filed. (ECF No. 20 8 at 4.) See also Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting 21 “[t]here is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915(d) a 22 complaint ‘that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.’”) (citation omitted). 23 As this case is malicious, the Court will accept the R&R and dismiss this case with 24 prejudice because amendment would be futile. See id. at 1111 (affirming dismissal with 25 prejudice where amendment would have been futile). 26 V. CONCLUSION 27 The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases 28 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 1 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 2 the Court. 3 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 4 Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full. 5 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to correct a clerical error (ECF No. 3) is 6 denied as moot. 7 It is further ordered that the financial certificate Judge Baldwin construed as 8 Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 5) is granted. 9 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 9) is overruled. 10 It is further ordered that that this case is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. 11 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 DATED THIS 2nd day of April 2020.

13

14 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28