2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 KEVIN BELCHER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00408-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 KATHLEEN DRAKULICH, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Kevin Belcher brings this case under

. Before the Court 12 is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. 13 Baldwin, recommending the Court grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (ECF No. 1) and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) with prejudice. (ECF 15 No. 5.) Plaintiff had until October 30, 2020, to file an objection to the R&R, but has not 16 done so. The Court will adopt the R&R in full. 17 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 19 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 20 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 21 v. Arn,

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

(9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings 23 and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 24 findings and recommendations.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) 25 (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 26 the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 27 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 28 satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends granting 1 || Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application because Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee. (ECF 2 || No. 5 at 2.) Judge Baldwin also recommends dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with 3 || prejudice as amendment would be futile. (/d. at 3-4.) The Court agrees with Judge 4 || Baldwin. The Court cannot intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Herrera 5 || v. City of Palmdale,

(9th Cir. 2019) (stating that the Younger 6 || doctrine prevents federal courts from intervening with pending state criminal 7 || proceedings); see also Younger v. Harris,

(1971). Additionally, Defendants 8 || are absolutely immune in § 1983 cases. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2nd 1202, 9 || 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Judges are absolutely immune . . . for judicial acts taken within the 10 || jurisdiction of their courts.”); see also Imbler v. Pachtman,

(1976) 11 || (stating that prosecutors are absolutely immune in § 1983 actions when “intimately 12 || associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”). Having reviewed the R&R 13 || and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Magistrate Judge Carla L. 15 || Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) is accepted and adopted in its 16 || entirety. 17 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 18 || No. 1) is granted. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with 20 || prejudice. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgement accordingly. 22 DATED THIS 5" Day of November 2020. 23 24 {Sha 25 MIRANDA DU 36 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28