1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Mr. Clayton-M Bernard-Ex, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02195-JAD-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 5 v. Recommendation and Dismissing Case 6 Matthew Lay, [ECF No. 12] 7 Defendant 8 Pro se plaintiff Clayton-M Bernard-Ex brings this civil-rights case against his criminal- 9 defense attorney for alleged ineffective assistance and other misconduct during a 2017 Las 10 Vegas Justice Court matter. The magistrate judge entered an amended screening order in this 11 case on January 6, 2025. Finding that none of Bernard-Ex’s federal claims are viable, the 12 magistrate judge recommends that I dismiss and close this case.1 The deadline for the plaintiff 13 to object to that recommendation was January 20, 2025, and he filed no objection and did not 14 ask to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and

15 recommendation unless objections are filed.”2 16 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Revised Screening Order and Report and 18 Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 19 • Plaintiff’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his right to 20 self-representation are dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend; 21 22 1 ECF No. 12. 23 2 Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,

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

(9th Cir. 2003). 1 e Plaintiff's claims for collusion and acts of terrorism are dismissed with prejudice; 2 and 3 e Plaintiffs state-law claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 4 without prejudice to his ability to refile them in Nevada State Court. 5 As this leaves no claims pending, the Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER 6] JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE. 7 LT

January 22, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23