1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PROVINO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00105-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH v. PREJUDICE 8 (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 8) MENDEZ III, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Provino filed this action against J.T. Mendez III, Barack 12 Obama, and Jeffrey E. Church alleging an interstate wire swindle. Provino has 13 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 1) and pro se 14 complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 15 Magistrate Judge Craig Denney has issued a Report and Recommendation 16 (“R&R”) recommending that this Court dismiss this action with prejudice and 17 deny Provino’s application to proceed IFP because the complaint and other filings 18 “present fantastic and delusional allegations.” (ECF No. 8.) The Court takes 19 notice that Provino has filed previous frivolous lawsuits. See e.g., Provino v. 20 Abbott, No. 3:18-CV-00203-MMD-WGC,

(D. Nev. May 9, 21 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-00203-MMD-WGC, 22

(D. Nev. June 1, 2018); Provino v. Texas Govt, No. 3:21-CV- 23 00427-MMD-CLB,

(D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2021); Provino v. Wray, 24 No. 3:23-CV-00211-MMD-CSD,

(D. Nev. Aug. 30, 2023); 25 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 26 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

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

(1985); see also United States v. 2 || Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 3 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that □□ there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 || recommendation.”). “When a case may be classified as frivolous . . . there 6 || is... reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith,

, 1128 7 || (9th Cir. 2000); see also Provino v. U.S. DOJ, No. 3:24-CV-00530-MMD-CSD, 8 ||

(D. Nev. May 28, 2025) (dismissing case with prejudice) 9 Having reviewed the R&R and the record, the Court will adopt the R&R 10 ||} (ECF No. 8) in full, deny Provino’s IFP (ECF No. 4), and deny his remaining 11 || motion (ECF No. 5) as moot. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 13 || Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending application to proceed 15 || IFP (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Untitled Motion (ECF No. 5) is 17 || DENIED as moot. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be administratively closed. 20 21 DATED THIS 18th Day of July, 2025. 22 23 Yo plod de 24 ANNE R. TRAUM 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28