2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 LAWRENCE RICHARD, Case No. 3:23-cv-00249-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., et 9 al.,

10 Defendants.

11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Lawrence Richard, currently in the custody of the Nevada 13 Department of Corrections, brought this civil rights action against Defendants, the 14 Washoe County Sheriff Department, Washoe County, Washoe County Detention Center 15 (“WCDC”), Scionti, Hughes, and Naphcare, related to events that occurred while he was 16 a detainee at WCDC. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 20), recommending that the 18 Court dismiss Richard’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19 (“SAC”)) and dismiss 19 the action without prejudice. Richard had until October 2, 2025 to file an objection and he 20 filed an objection on October 14, 2025. (ECF No. 21 (“Objection”).) As further explained 21 below, the Court overrules Richard’s Objection and adopts the R&R in full. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 25 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is required 26 to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 27 28 2 his Objection.1 3 Judge Denney first screens the SAC and recommends dismissing it because 4 Richard does not state any colorable claims as to any named Defendants. (ECF No. 20 5 at 2-6.) Judge Denney recommends the SAC specifically because: (1) WCDC is not a 6 proper defendant who can be sued (id. at 4); (2) the only allegation as to Naphcare is that 7 it employed John Doe 1 but Naphcare cannot be held liable under a section 1983 claim 8 for merely employing someone who allegedly violated Richard’s Constitutional rights (id. 9 at 4-5); and (3) the SAC contains no allegations as to Deputies Scionti and Hughes. 10 A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which 11 relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “a 12 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

at 13 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). While Rule 8 does not 14 require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a 15 “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 16 678 (2009) (citing Twombly,

.) “Factual allegations must be enough to rise 17 above the speculative level.” Twombly,

. Particular care is taken in 18 reviewing the pleadings of a pro se party, for a more forgiving standard applies to litigants 19 not represented by counsel. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 20 However, a liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of the 21 claim not initially pled. See Pena v. Gardner,

(9th Cir. 1992). 22 The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Even construing Richard’s allegations 23 liberally, the SAC fails to allege any colorable claims as to the Defendants. 24 Judge Denney next recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Judge Denney noted that the complaint in this 26 1Richard’s Objection does not provide specific arguments as to Judge Denney’s 27 recommendations, but rather seeks an extension of time to file a third amended complaint and properly serve summons. The Court construes the Objection generally and will review 28 the entire R&R. 1 || matter was originally filed on June 7, 2023. (ECF No. 20 at 6.) The amended complaint 2 || was filed on March 28, 2024, and screened on August 30, 2024. The summons for 3 || Washoe County Sheriffs Department was issued on August 30, 2024. (ECF No. 11) 4 || Plaintiff requested additional time to complete service on June 13, 2025 and the request 5 || was granted. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.) The Court cautioned Richard that no further extensions 6 || would be granted absent a showing of good cause. To date, Richard has neither 7 || completed service nor sought to identify and substitute an individual in place of Defendant 8 || John Doe 1. (/d. at 7.) 9 The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Richard was given a 90-day extension to 10 || serve Defendants and cautioned that there would be no further extensions absent good 11 || cause. Richard then failed to effectuate service or show good cause as to why he did not 12 || serve Defendants. The Court will thus adopt the R&R in full. 13 || Ill. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that Richard’s objection (ECF No. 21) to Judge Denney’s 15 || R&R is adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17 || 20) is adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is 19 || dismissed. 20 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 21 || Richard’s failure to serve Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 23 || close this case. 24 DATED THIS 7" Day of November 2025.

26 MIRANDA M. DU 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28