2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ROBERTO DURAND, Case No. 3:22-cv-00169-MMD-CSD

Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v.

8 KRISTINA WILDEVELD, et al.,

9 Defendants. 10

11 Pro se Plaintiff Roberto Durand, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 12 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this civil rights action under

. 13 (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court are three Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 6, 14 10, 13 (together, “R&Rs”)) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. The first 15 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6 (“First R&R”)) recommends that (a) Durand’s 16 applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) be denied, (b) his preemptory challenge 17 be denied, and (c) this action be dismissed with prejudice. The second Report and 18 Recommendation (ECF No. 10 (“Second R&R”)) recommends that Durand’s third IFP 19 application be denied. Finally, the third Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13 (“Third 20 R&R”))1 recommends that Durand’s fourth IFP application be denied. 21 Durand has filed what appears to be “objections” to the First and Second R&Rs. 22 (See ECF Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14.)2 Because the Court agrees with Judge Denney and because 23 a review of the objections reveal that Durand has failed to make any relevant or cognizable 24 arguments, the Court will adopt Judge Denney’s R&Rs in full. Accordingly, the Court will 25 deny Durand’s IFP applications and his preemptory challenge. The Court will also dismiss 26 this action with prejudice. 27 1Durand did not file an objection to the Third R&R. 28 2The Court notes that these filings were either on a Ninth Circuit form or other forms 2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 3 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct 4 “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 5

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

, 1116 6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations 7 is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 8 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 9 (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 10 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 11 Even though Durand files what the Court construes as objections to the First and 12 Second R&Rs, a review of his filings show that he has failed to make any arguments 13 regarding Judge Denney’s R&Rs. For example, Durand states in one of his filings that he 14 has timely objected to the First R&R and he “ask this Hon District Court please to grant 15 this objection and accept this (IFP)” but does not provide much more. (ECF No. 8 16 (parentheses in original).) Moreover, in reviewing the filings, the Court is unable to 17 comprehend his statements in the way his sentences are written. Because Durand has 18 failed to make arguments, there are effectively no objections to the R&Rs. The Court 19 therefore need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not 20 clearly err. 21 Here, Judge Denney recommends that Durand’s IFP applications be denied 22 because Durand’s current account balance indicates that he has sufficient funds to pay 23 the filing fee and that he does not qualify for IFP status. (ECF Nos. 6 at 2, 10 at 3, 13 at 24 1-2.) Judge Denney also recommends that Durand’s preemptory challenge be denied as 25 the District of Nevada (federal court) does not utilize the preemptory challenge utilized in 26 the Eighth Judicial District Court (state court). (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Moreover, Judge Denney 27 recommends that Durand’s complaint be dismissed as Defendants are attorneys and not 28 state actors subject to suit under

. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court agrees with 1 || Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&Rs and the record in this case, the Court will adopt 2 || the R&Rs in full. 3 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Reports and Recommendations (ECF 4 || Nos. 6, 10, 13) are accepted and adopted in full. 5 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Roberto Durand’s applications to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 3, 7, 12) are denied. Durand is ordered to pay, through NDOC, the 7 || full filing fee of $402.00 ($350.00 filing fee and $52.00 administrative fee) within 30 days 8 || of this order. This is required even though the Court is dismissing this action. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the attention of □□□□□□ 10 || of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 7011, Carson 11 || City, Nevada, 89702. 12 The Clerk of Court is further directed to file Durand’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 13 It is further ordered that Durand’s preemptory challenge (ECF No. 5) is denied. 14 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 16 DATED THIS 28" Day of July 2022. 17 18 4 ( ne 19 ASS MIRANDA M. DU 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28