1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 KARY PATRICK MACLEOD COLVIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-ART-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DELONG, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Kary Patrick Macleod Colvin brings this action under 42

against attorneys from the Washoe County District Attorney Office 13 for basing his bond hearing and subsequent proceedings on sealed juvenile 14 records and for denying him legal representation. Before the Court is the Report 15 and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court dismiss without 17 prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and deny as moot his application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff had until June 13, 2023, to file 19 an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, 20 and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss the 21 complaint without prejudice. 22 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 23 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 24 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 25 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 26 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 1 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 2 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 3 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 4 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 5 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 6 || and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 7 || recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice because, under Heck 8 || v. Humphrey,

(1994), Plaintiff can only proceed in a § 1983 action 9 || if he can show his conviction has been overturned; otherwise, he must bring a 10 || habeas corpus action. (ECF No. 3 at 4-5.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. 11 || Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the 12 || R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 16 || without prejudice. 17 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 || (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 19 20 21 DATED THIS 15tt Day of November 2023. 22 23 Awe jlossd Wn 24 ANNER.TRAUM ———<“CCS 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28