2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOE ELTON MOSLEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00146-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 JIMMY WHITE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint—on the basis of diversity 12 jurisdiction—against Walmart and its security manager for several wrongful conduct 13 against Plaintiff and his family that allegedly occurred at a Walmart in Sparks, Nevada. 14 (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 15 United States Magistrate Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court grant 16 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (the “IFP Application”) (ECF No. 1) and 17 dismiss his pro se civil rights Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice. Plaintiff had until 18 May 18, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection has been filed. For that reason, 19 and because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin, the Court will adopt the R&R. 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 fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 23 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); 24 see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of 25 the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 26 parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 28 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 1 The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in de novo review to determine whether 2 || to adopt Magistrate Judge Baldwin’s R&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error. 3 || Judge Baldwin recommends that the Court grant the IFP Application because Plaintiff 4 || cannot pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Judge Baldwin also recommends that the Court 5 || dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff alleges he is 6 || a Nevada citizen and that Walmart is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of 7 || business in Nevada. (/d. at 4.) See

(c)(1); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. 8 || v. Kroger,

(1978). The Court agrees. 9 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 10 || Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma 12 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. 13 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 14 It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. 15 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this 16 || case. 17 DATED THIS day of May 2020. 18 19 Abtny ANDA M. DU 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28