1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 ROBERT LILLBURN NELSON, III, Case No. 3:22-cv-00405-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Robert Lillburn Nelson, III, brings this action against Defendant 13 United States Government. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 15 4), recommending that the Court grant Nelson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Application”)), and dismiss this action with prejudice. Nelson’s objection 17 to the R&R was due October 4, 2022. To date, no objection has been filed.1 For this 18 reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full. 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 1The Clerk of Court sent a copy of Judge Denney’s R&R to Nelson, but the mail 27 was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 5.) It appears that Nelson visited the Clerk’s Office on September 29, 2022, and the Clerk informed him that the mail was returned and 1 || findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 2 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 3 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there was no objection to the R&R, the Court need not conduct de novo 5 || review, and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. To start, Nelson’s IFP 6 || Application will be granted because it shows that Nelson is unable to pay the filing fee. 7 || (ECF No. 1.) See

(a)(1). Next, Judge Denney correctly found that 8 || Nelson’s case should be dismissed because the Complaint is frivolous and fails to state 9 || a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) See Neitzke v. Williams, 10 |}

(1989); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). Thus, 11 || the Court adopts the R&R in full. (ECF No. 4.) 12 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 13 || No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 It is further ordered that Nelson’s IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is granted. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 16 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice, as amendment is 17 || futile. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 19 DATED THIS 12" Day of October 2022.

21 iRANDA MDU 39 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28