1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-001780-ART-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Matthew Houston (“Houston”) brings this action suing 12 multiple defendants for what appears to be a conspiracy that may have resulted 13 in his imprisonment. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” 14 or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts (ECF 15 No. 8), recommending that this action be dismissed and Houston’s application 16 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 4) be denied. For the reasons 17 explained below the Court adopts the R&R. 18 Plaintiff initially filed an application to proceed IFP that contained the 19 following deficiencies: (1) it was on the wrong form; (2) it was intended for a 20 different court; (3) it was incomplete; and (4) it did not attach a complaint. (ECF 21 No. 1). The Court thus denied Plaintiff’s application and ordered him to file a 22 corrected application attaching a complaint on or before November 28, 2022. 23 (ECF No. 3). It warned that failure to comply with the order would result in a 24 recommendation to the district judge that the action be dismissed. (Id.). Plaintiff 25 missed his deadline to file a corrected application. On January 5, 2023, he filed 26 an application to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff also filed a complaint. (ECF 27 No. 5). But Plaintiff’s complaint is nearly impossible to decipher. He names 28 multiple defendants and alludes to a conspiracy against him which he appears 1 to allege resulted in his imprisonment. The remainder of his complaint includes 2 disjointed pages that include a dream journal and excerpts from a magazine. 3 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s previous order by filing his 4 application late. His complaint also includes delusional allegations. 5 Based on the aforementioned reasons, Judge Albregts recommended 6 dismissal of the case and denial of the IFP application. Houston subsequently 7 filed an objection (ECF No. 10) and four other motions (ECF Nos. 11; 12; 13 and 8 14) asking for, inter alia recusal of Judge Albregts. The objections and motions 9 themselves are generally disjointed and fantastical. 10 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 11 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 12 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 13 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 14 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 15 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 16 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 17 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”)(emphasis 18 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 19 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 20 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 21 Houston filed an objection but functionally the R&R is unobjected to. The 22 objection and the motions viewed in isolation or collectively are 23 incomprehensible and do not articulate a basis to reject the R&R. Because there 24 is functionally no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 25 satisfied Judge Albregts did not clearly err. The Court would reach the same 26 conclusion under any standard of review. Having reviewed the R&R and the 27 record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 28 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Albregts Report and 2 || Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 4 || PREJUDICE; 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motions (ECF Nos. 11; 12; 13 8 || and 14) are DENIED AS MOOT; 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 10 || accordingly and CLOSE this case. 11 12 DATED THIS 2nd Day of March 2023. 13 14 Awe jlosent he 15 ANNER.TRAUM ss 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28