2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 THOMAS L. Williams, Case No. 3:20-cv-00214-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 STATE OF NEVADA,

10 Defendants.

11

12 Pro Se Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams brings this action under

. (ECF 13 No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 14 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 65), recommending that the Court grant 15 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1), dismiss the 16 complaint with prejudice (ECF No. 1-1), and deny his motion for appointment of counsel 17 (ECF No. 1-2). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff had until July 2, 2020, to file objections. To date, no 18 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 19 adopts the R&R and grants the IFP application, dismisses the complaint with prejudice, 20 and denies the motion for appointment of counsel as moot. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails 26 to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 27 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also 28 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 2 parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy 4 itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 recommendation”). 6 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is 7 satisfied that there is no clear error. Judge Baldwin found that Plaintiff’s IFP application 8 demonstrates that he cannot pay the filing fee and recommends that the Court grant the 9 application. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The Court agrees. 10 Judge Baldwin also recommends the Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice 11 and deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot because the State of 12 Nevada is the only named Defendant in this case and Plaintiff’s allegations challenge his 13 state court criminal conviction and proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 3-5.) Plaintiff may not bring 14

claims or state law claims against the State of Nevada because “[t]he 15 Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an 16 unconsenting state.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op.,

, 1053 17 (9th Cir. 1991); see also NRS § 41.031(3) (“The State of Nevada does not waive its 18 immunity from suit conferred by Amendment XI of the Constitution of the United States.”). 19 Additionally, if Plaintiff seeks to challenge his state court conviction and proceedings, he 20 must do so through a habeas corpus action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

, 500 21 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 22 imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 23 release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 24 habeas corpus.”). For these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s 25 recommendations. 26 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27 3) is adopted in its entirety. 28 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 1 || No. 1) is granted. 2 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with 3 || prejudice. 4 It is further ordered Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2) is 5 || denied as moot. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this 7 || order and close this case. 8 DATED THIS 9" day of July 2020. {LQ 10 4 MIRANDA M. DU 11 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28