1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 IN RE PHILLIP BROWN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00346-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff. ORDER 7

8 9 Pro se Plaintiff Phillip Brown brings this action against no named 10 defendants and with no identified causes of action apparently seeking damages 11 from various airline companies and booking websites for harm allegedly suffered 12 while traveling. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 14 3) screening the complaint and recommending this action be dismissed with 15 prejudice. The R&R also recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Application”)) be denied as moot. Plaintiff had 17 until July 27, 2023 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has 18 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, 19 and will dismiss the case without prejudice. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 21 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 22 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 23 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 24 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 25 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 26 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 27 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 28 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 4 and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 5 recommends dismissing the action with prejudice because the Court cannot 6 identify the factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims, nor can it conceive any set 7 of circumstances where Plaintiff’s conclusory statements would give rise to a 8 federal constitutional or statutory right. (ECF No. 3 at 3–4.) The R&R also 9 recommends that leave to amend not be granted because the deficiencies in 10 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured by amendment, thus rendering amendment 11 futile. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Plaintiff’s 12 complaint is largely incomprehensible and does not state a claim upon which 13 relief may be granted and amendment here would be futile. Having reviewed the 14 R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Baldwin’s Report and 2 || Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is 4 || denied as moot. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk file the complaint. (ECF No. 1- 6 || 1.) 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be 8 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 10 || this action. 11 12 DATED THIS 9th day of November 2023. 13 14 4 floret 15 ANNE R. TRAUM 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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