2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 WE THE PEOPLE UNIFIED UNITED Case No. 3:19-cv-00533-MMD-WGC STATES COMMON LAW GRAND 7 JURY ORDER

8 Plaintiff, v. 9

10 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 Pro Se Plaintiff We the People Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury filed 14 a complaint on August 26, 2019 but did not pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb 17 recommending that the Court dismiss this action. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff had until June 23, 18 2020, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, 19 and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action in its entirety. 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) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 1 || parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. 2 || R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy 3 || itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 4 || recommendation’). 5 Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept 6 || the R&R. Judge Cobb identifies several defects in Plaintiff's action. First, Judge Cobb 7 || notes that Plaintiff seems to adhere to the “sovereign citizen” anti-government movement 8 || by attempting to assert a claim “under ‘Jurisdictional Natural Law’ by United States Grand 9 || Jury as a sovereign.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) However, as Judge Cobb explains, courts 10 || nationwide have rejected these types of “sovereign citizen” theories. (/d. at 3.) Judge Cobb 11 || also finds that Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or to submit an application to proceed in 12 || forma pauperis. Therefore, Judge Cobb recommends that this action be dismissed with 13 || prejudice. (/d. at 4.) Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying complaint, this Court finds 14 || good cause to adopt Judge Cobb’s recommendation in full. 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16 || 3) is adopted in its entirety. 17 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. 18 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order 19 || and close this case. 20 DATED THIS 1* day of July 2020. — 21 ASR 22 MIRANDA M. DU 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28