1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CALVIN LESLIE, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00569-MMD-CSD

4 Plaintiff Report & Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 5 v. Re: ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2 6 DR. BERNSTEIN, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United 10 States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4. 12 Plaintiff, who is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 13 (NDOC), has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 1), a pro se 14 complaint (ECF No. 1-1), and a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-2). 15 The Plaintiff’s complaint in this case (ECF No. 1-1) is duplicative of an earlier complaint 16 he filed on September 3, 2025. See ECF No. 3:25-cv-00521-ART-CSD. The only differences are 17 minor: (1) the complaint in this case names two fewer defendants; and (2) the complaint in this 18 case refers to “Metro” while the earlier complaint uses the word “police.” There are no other 19 substantive differences. Because the complaint in this case is duplicative of the complaint filed in 20 Case No. 3:25-cv-00521-ART-CSD, the court recommends that the District Judge enter an order 21 dismissing this action. The dismissal should be without prejudice to file the complaint in this 22 case as an amended complaint in Case No. 3:25-cv-00521-ART-CSD, should Plaintiff so choose. 23 1}| The pending application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of 2|| counsel should be denied as moot. 3 RECOMMENDATION 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge enter an order: 5 (1) DISMISSING this action without prejudice to re-file as an amended complaint in 6 Case No. 3:25-cv-00521-ART-CSD; and 7 (2) DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 8 (ECF No. 1) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No 1-2). 9 The Plaintiff should be aware of the following: 10 1. That he may file, pursuant to

(b)(1)(C), specific written objections to 11]|this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report 12||and Recommendation. These objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for 14]| consideration by the district judge. Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to 15]| appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

(9 Cir. 1991). 16 2. That this Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and that any notice of 17] appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of judgment by the district court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 20, 2025

Craig S. Denney 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23