1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 ALFORNIA SMALL, JR., Case No.: 3:25-cv-00331-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 U.S. BANK, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Alfornia Small, Jr. filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 12 (ECF No. 1) and a civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint”)) under

1983 against U.S. Bank alleging that the bank allowed an unauthorized individual to 14 access his account and carry out fraudulent transactions during his incarceration and now 15 objects (ECF No. 6 (“Objection”)) to United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s 16 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Court grant Small’s IFP 17 application, dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend, and 18 close this case. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 5-6.) As further explained below, the Court overrules 19 Small’s Objection and adopts the R&R in full. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is required 23 to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 24 to which objection is made.”

The Court’s review is thus de novo because Small filed 25 his Objection (ECF No. 6).1 26

27 1Plaintiff objects to the entire R&R. (ECF No. 6.) However, Plaintiff’s Objection is largely unintelligible, so it is unclear to the Court what, specifically, Plaintiff objects to and 28 1 Judge Baldwin first recommends the Court grant the IFP application (ECF No. 1) 2 because Small is unable to make an initial installment payment towards the full filing fee 3 under

. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) The Court will accept the recommendation 4 without further review because Small received the intended outcome of his application 5 and did not explicitly object to its granting. 6 Judge Baldwin then screens Small’s Complaint. (Id. at 3-5.) He seeks in part:

7 “I would like my name cleared of any and all wrongdoing. I would like the $703.63 U.S. Bank claims I owe to be erased. I want the $1000.00 I had in 8 my checking and savings account to be returned to me. I would like nominal 9 and compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded to me that the Court deems warranted and justified and equitable…” 10 (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) 11 Judge Baldwin recommends dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without 12 prejudice and without leave to amend because Small fails to meet the requirements under 13 a § 1983 civil rights claim. (ECF No. 5 at 3-5.) The Court agrees. 14

aims “to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority 15 to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights.” Anderson v. Warner,

1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McDade v. West,

, 1139 (9th Cir. 17 2000)). The statute “provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting 18 under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights[,]” Conn v. Gabbert, 526

, 290 (1999), and, therefore, “serves as the procedural device for enforcing 20 substantive provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes.” Crumpton v. Gates, 947

, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) 22 the violation of a federally protected right by (2) a person or official acting under the color 23 of state law. See Warner, 451 F.3d at 1067. 24 Here, Small fails to identify any specific constitutional right allegedly violated by 25 U.S. Bank. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) And even if he had identified such a right, U.S. Bank is not 26 a state actor, nor has it acted under color of state law. (Id.) Small asserts in his Objection 27 that “he is being discriminated against” by the Bank and that its staff are “wreaking havoc 28 1 on [his] reputation,” thereby precluding him from opening a new bank account. (ECF No. 2 6 at 2.) However, the Court cannot see how the requirements under

are 3 met and, accordingly, agrees that amendment of the Complaint would be futile. 4 Moreover, Judge Baldwin explains that, to the extent Small’s allegations could be 5 construed as asserting state law claims of negligence or breach of contract, the Court 6 lacks jurisdiction. (Id.) Small has not alleged a claim arising under federal law to establish 7 federal question jurisdiction nor has he alleged facts sufficient to establish diversity 8 jurisdiction under

(a)(1), as the amount in controversy2 falls well below 9 the $75,000 statutory threshold. (Id. at 4-5.) Judge Baldwin is therefore correct in her 10 determination that the Complaint fails to assert any federal or state claims that can 11 proceed in this case, so this action must be dismissed. (ECF No. 5 at 5.) Leave to amend 12 is inappropriate here because the issues identified by the Court cannot be cured by 13 amendment. See Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). Having 14 reviewed the R&R de novo, Judge Baldwin did not err. 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 2Small alleges that he previously had $1,000 in a checking and savings account 28 with U.S. Bank, which he claims was stolen, and he now owes the Bank over $700. (ECF 1 It is therefore ordered that Small’s Objection (ECF No. 6) to Judge Baldwin’s 2 || Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) is overruled. 3 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 4 || No. 5) is accepted and adopted in full. 5 It is further ordered that Small’s IFP application (ECF No. 1) is granted. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 7 It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice 8 || and without leave to amend. 9 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this 10 || Order and close this case. 11 DATED THIS 28" Day of August 2025. 12

14 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28