1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 CUTTER FURZE HALLEMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00345-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Cutter Furze Halleman brings this action against Defendants under 13

. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 14 (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 4), recommending 15 that the Court grant Halleman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP 16 Application”)), and dismiss the case with prejudice because Halleman failed to state any 17 colorable claims in his Complaint (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4). Halleman’s objection to the R&R was 18 due September 7, 2022. To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as 19 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 23 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 24 v. Arn,

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

, 25 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 26 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 27 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and 4 || is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. To start, Halleman’s IFP Application will 5 || be granted because he is unable to pay the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) See

|| 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Second, 7 || Judge Baldwin correctly found that Halleman’s Complaint is incomprehensible, confusing, 8 || and contains conclusory and vague statements. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4.) The Court is unable 9 || to identify the legal or factual basis for his claims, and the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. 10 || P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain 11 || statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . [and] a demand for 12 || the relief sought’); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). Accordingly, the 13 || Court will adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full and dismiss the case with prejudice, as 14 || amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 15 || 1995). 16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 17 || No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that Halleman’s IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is granted. 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 20 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 22 DATED THIS 16" Day of September 2022. 23 L ( 24 ats M. DU 35 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28