1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MAX PROVINO, Case No. 3:22-cv-00341-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Max Provino (“Provino”) filed this action against Cameron 12 County, Texas, Judge Carlos H. Cascos (of Cameron County, Texas), Texas 13 Governor Greg Abbott, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Judge Hinjosa (of 14 Cameron County, Texas), Judge Benny Ochoa III (of Cameron County, Texas), 15 Texas State Inspector John Richards, Jeffrey E. Church (a fraud attorney in 16 Austin, Texas), Albert Villegas III (a fraud attorney in Austin, Texas), Laguna 17 Vista, Texas City Manager Raul Garza, Mr. Warman (the Texas governor’s fraud 18 counselor in Austin, Texas), Lisa Medrano (a title officer in Texas), and Rob 19 Carter (Texas Commissioner of Title and Mortgage Fraud). Provino has filed an 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint 21 (ECF No. 1-1). Provino’s allegations concern a payoff of what was owed on real 22 property located at 242 Santa Isabell in Texas. 23 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 24 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig Denney (ECF No. 25 3), recommending that this Court dismiss this action without prejudice and deny 26 Provino’s application to proceed IFP as moot. The R&R explains that a civil action 27 must be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 28 defendants reside in the same state where the district is located, (2) a judicial 1 district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 2 claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 3 is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal 4 jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which 5 the action may otherwise be brought.

(b). 6 Judge Denney thus recommends dismissal because there is no indication 7 that any of the Defendants reside in the District of Nevada. Instead, the minimal 8 factual allegations, while confusing and disjointed, concern defendants, 9 property, and events located in Texas. It appears the Court lacks personal 10 jurisdiction over the Defendants, and venue is improper here. Judge Denney 11 recommends that this action should be dismissed, and the dismissal should be 12 without prejudice to the extent Provino may file a complaint asserting plausible 13 claims for relief in the correct court, likely in Texas. He further recommends that 14 action should be administratively closed in the District of Nevada and the 15 pending application to proceed IFP filed by Plaintiff should be denied as moot. 16 Before the Court is also Provino’s Motion to Continue with Parity Trial by 17 Jury Based on New Evidence. (ECF No. 4.) That motion, though difficult to 18 understand, appears to argue that Texas has no respect for property owners and 19 discusses the removal of Provino’s name from certain property and insurance 20 checks. (Id.) The motion does not set forth any objections or arguments or 21 identify any issue in the R&R to which Provino objects. For this reason, and as 22 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and denies Provino’s motion as moot. 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 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 Provino does not identify any issue to which he objects or explain 7 || the basis for any objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 8 || satisfied Magistrate Judge Denney did not clearly err. Provino’s motion (ECF No. 9 || 4) only confirms that this action has been brought in the wrong district. Though 10 || difficult to follow, it attaches various letters concerning defendants, property, 11 || and events in Texas. (Id.) 12 Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt 13 || the R&R (ECF No. 3) in full and deny Provino’s motion (ECF No. 4) as moot. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 15 || Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without 17 || prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending application to proceed 19 || IFP (ECF No. 1-1) is DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Continue with Parity 21 || Trial by Jury Based on New Evidence (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be administratively closed. 23 24 DATED THIS 14th Day of October 2022. 25 26 A flosecd Jon 27 ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE