2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOE ELTON MOSLEY LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00184-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 WALMART, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Joe Elton Mosley LLC (“Mosley LLC”) has brought this pro se action against 12 Walmart and its security manager Jimmy White for allegedly having guns drawn on Joe 13 Elton Mosley the individual (“Individual Mosley”) while he was at Walmart with his family, 14 and for calling the police on them. (ECF No. 3 at 4-5.) United States Magistrate Judge 15 William G. Cobb issued a Report and Recommendation of (“R&R”), recommending that 16 the Court dismiss this action and deny Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application (ECF 17 No. 1) as moot. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff had until April 9, 2020 to file an objection. The Court 18 accepted the R&R on April 10, 2020, both because Plaintiff had not objected and because 19 the Court agreed with Judge Cobb after conducting a de novo review. (ECF No. 5.) 20 However, after the Court’s order was docketed, the Court learned that Plaintiff filed his 21 objections on April 6, 2020, before the April 9, 2020 deadline (ECF No. 7)1. Having now 22 reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, the Court reaffirms its prior order adopting the R&R (ECF 23 No. 5). The Court addresses Plaintiff’s objections in turn. 24 Although Plaintiff’s objections are at times unclear, it appears he is challenging 25 Individual Mosley’s underlying arrest and conviction. (ECF No. 7 at 2-3.) Moreover, Plaintiff 26 1Due to a docketing error which has since been corrected, Plaintiff’s objection was 27 not docketed until April 10, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) While his objection is docketed as ECF No. 7 and carried a filed stamp date of April 6, 2020, it was actually docketed after the order 28 adopting the R&R, which is ECF No. 5. 1 || has attached documents that he purports is evidence that Mosley LLC is a validly “private 2 || entity,” not a corporation. (See id. at 1; ECF No. 7-1.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not 3 || dispute that this action is duplicative of a previously filed action in case number 3:20-v- 4 || 184-MMD-WGC. (ECF No. 3 at 5 (citing to Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

|| 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

6 || (2008).) 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it correctly adopted the R&R (ECF 8 || No. 3). 9 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 7) are overruled. This 10 || Court's order (ECF No. 5) and judgment (ECF No. 6) stands. 11 DATED THIS 13* day of April 2020.

13 ( ( (. 14 MIRA DA M. DU 16 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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