1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00410-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT 9 OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 In this case, pro se Plaintiff Heath Vincent Fulkerson attempts to sue the Nevada 12 Department of Business and Industry and the Hartford Financial Insurance Group for 13 insufficiently paying out on purported worker’s compensation claims. Before the Court is 14 the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 15 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 3), primarily recommending upon screening 16 Plaintiff’s proposed complaint that his proposed claims be dismissed with prejudice as 17 frivolous because they are duplicative of claims he unsuccessfully tried to raise in a very 18 similar case. Plaintiff had until October 27, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection 19 to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the 20 R&R, and will primarily dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. 21 The 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 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 v. Arn,

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

, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 27 1 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 2 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 3 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 5 satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends the Court 6 grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff appears unable 7 to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Judge Baldwin then recommends the Court dismiss 8 this case “as frivolous or malicious under § 1915(e)” because the claims he raises here 9 “are directly related—and are in fact identical—to those raised in another action filed by 10 Fulkerson in Case No. 3:20-cv-00400-MMD-CLB.” (Id. at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge 11 Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the 12 R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 14 No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 16 No. 1) is granted. 17 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to submit complaint (ECF No. 1-2) is 18 granted. 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, in its 21 entirety, with prejudice. 22 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 23 case. 24 DATED THIS 17th Day of November 2020. 25 26

27 MIRANDA M. DU