Williams v. United States District Court District of Nevada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

D. WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00217-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, ORDER v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff D. Williams brings this civil action against Defendants, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the United States, the State of Nevada, and “Corporations I-C and Does I-C”. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending that Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted and that Williams’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Williams had until May 31, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this action with prejudice.

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing this action as Williams’s complaint is rambling, nonsensical, and filled with incomplete sentences. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Moreover, Williams does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and amendment would be futile. (/d. at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the } R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff D. Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file Williams’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). It is further ordered that Williams’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED THIS 1* Day of July 2021. a.

A |

MIRANDA M. DU

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE