1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHN T. WILLIAMS, et. al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00230-ART-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 JANET F. KING, ET. AL., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiffs bring this action under

and Bivens v. Six 12 Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971), 13 relating to underlying criminal proceedings and convictions that occurred in the 14 State of Georgia. (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiffs assert these claims against Defendants 15 District Court Judge Janet F. King and Circuit Court Judge Richard J. Sullivan 16 and seek declaratory and monetary relief. (Id. at 5, 27.) Before the Court is the 17 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 18 Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending the in forma 19 pauperis application (“IFP”), (ECF No. 1), be granted, and the complaint, (ECF No. 20 1-2), be dismissed, without prejudice. Objections to the R&R were due by June 21 7, 2022. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 22 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R. 23 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 24 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 25 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 26 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 27 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 28 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 1 || magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 2 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 3 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 4 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 5 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 6 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 7 || and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Magistrate 8 || Judge Baldwin reviewed the application to proceed IFP and found that Plaintiffs 9 || cannot pay the filing fee. She therefore recommends the IFP be granted. Judge 10 || Baldwin also found that there is no indication that any of the individual 11 || defendants reside in the District of Nevada and the underlying criminal 12 || proceeding took place in the District of Georgia. She just recommends that 13 || dismissal is warranted based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper 14 || venue. 15 This Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the 16 || record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baldwin’s Report and 18 || Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in 20 || forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be GRANTED; 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, (ECF No. 1-2), be 22 || DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to the extent Plaintiffs can assert plausible 23 || claims for relief in the correct court; and, 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be CLOSED and that 25 || judgment be entered accordingly 26 DATED THIS 22"4 Day of September 2022. 27 Ans plasect Jon 28 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE