1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 SHIRL KEAHEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00396-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MOHAMAD RUISE, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Shirl Keahey brings this action against Defendant Mohamad Ruise. 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 (“R&R”)) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, recommending that the Court grant Keahey’s 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Application”)) and dismiss the 15 Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) with prejudice. Keahey had until January 18, 2022, to file an 16 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 17 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant Keahey’s IFP Application and 18 dismiss the case with prejudice. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn,

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

, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied that Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Judge Cobb correctly found that the IFP 3 || Application shows Keahey is unable to pay the filing fee. See

(a)(1); 4 || Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000). Judge Cobb also recommends the 5 || Court dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 6 || be granted. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) A review of the Complaint confirms that Keahey failed to 7 || provide sufficient factual allegations to state a colorable claim for relief. (ECF No. 1-1.) 8 || See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 9 || 678 (2009). Keahey also did not include the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the 10 |} Complaint. (/d.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Finally, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate 11 || since amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States,

(9th 12 || Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe,

(9th Cir. 1990). The Court therefore 13 || agrees with Judge Cobb and adopts the R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15 || 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Keahey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 17 || No. 1) is granted. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-1.) 19 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 21 DATED THIS 28" Day of January 2022. 22 A ( —) 23 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28