1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ANDREA WOOD and Case No. 3:22-cv-0498-ART-CSD H.P., a minor, 7 ORDER Plaintiffs, 8 v.

9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 10 Defendant. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Andrea Wood (“Wood”) brings this action alleging that 12 Contra Costa County School District put a high school sophomore on a varsity 13 school football team without his mother’s signed permission, and the minor, 14 H.P., suffered a head injury and concussion, which the school covered up. Before 15 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 16 United States Magistrate Judge Denney (ECF No. 4), screening Plaintiff’s 17 Complaint and recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without 18 prejudice for lack of venue and that the application to proceed in forma pauperis 19 (“IFP”) be denied without prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 20 adopts the R&R. 21 A civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any 22 defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district 23 is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 24 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that 25 is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an 26 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district 27 in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with 28 1 respect to such action.

(b)(1)-(3). The R&R finds that venue is 2 not proper in the District of Nevada. Contra Costa County School District is 3 located within the Northern District of California; and therefore, venue appears 4 to be proper there. 5 “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the 6 wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, 7 transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 8 brought.”

(a). The R&R accordingly recommends dismissal. 9 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 10 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 11 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 12 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 13 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 14 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 15 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 16 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 17 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 18 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 19 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 20 Because Plaintiff did not object and the Court is satisfied that Judge 21 Denney did not clearly err, the Court adopts the R&R. 22 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 24 Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full; 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be filed 26 as Plaintiff’s Complaint; 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be 28 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma 2 || pauperis be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered accordingly and this 4 || case be administratively closed. 5 6 DATED THIS 24 Day of March 2023. 7 8 Ares jlosect qe 9 ANNER.TRAUM ———C™S 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28