1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 LORENZO MORENO, Case No. 3:23-cv-00413-ART-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Lorenzo Moreno brings this action under

. 12 Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated for six years for a crime he did not 13 commit, and that during his incarceration he was “sexually harass[ed], 14 intercourse numerous times by the United States govirment [sic] throughout 15 technologey [sic] including torture numerous times.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 5.) Before 16 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 17 United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 6), recommending the 18 Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and deny as 19 moot Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) application (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff had until 20 September 22, 2023 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has 21 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, 22 and will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and deny as 23 moot Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 5). 24 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 25 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 26 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 27 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 28 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 1 || Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 2 || magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 3 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 4 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 5 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 6 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 7 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 8 || and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 9 || recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice and denying as moot the 10 || IFP application because Plaintiff provides no claims for relief and does not 11 || identify the factual or legal or legal basis for his claims. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) The 12 || Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in 13 || this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 15 || (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 17 || with prejudice. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs IFP application (ECF No. 5) is denied as 19 |} moot. 20 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file the complaint (ECF No. 1- 21 |} 1). 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the action 23 || and enter judgment accordingly. 24 25 DATED THIS 10t# Day of October 2023. 26 27 Aras jlosed Ten 28 ANNE R.TRAUM ——CiCs UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE