Calvin Leslie v. Dr. Bernstein, et al.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CALVIN LESLIE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00521-ART-CSD Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 9) DR. BERNSTEIN, et al., 9 Defendants.

Plaintiff Calvin Leslie brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Dr. Bernstein, “Caseworker Jennifer,” and “Caseworker Lady,” of North Vista Hospital, for allegedly working with the police to frame him. (ECF No. 1-1.) On October 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney dismissed Mr. Leslie’s complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Judge Denney gave Mr. Leslie thirty days to file an amended complaint. (Id.) On December 2, 2025, Judge Denney issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Mr. Leslie’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to amend. (ECF No. 9.)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s R&R. I. LEGAL STANDARD Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. || Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

2 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R and his || time to do so has now expired. (ECF No. 9.)

4 Il. ANALYSIS 5 The magistrate judge found that Mr. Leslie could not state a colorable claim || for relief under section 1983 because he did not argue a theory under which the || Defendants cooperation with police rose to the level of a cognizable constitutional || violation. (ECF No. 9.) Mr. Leslie does not state what, if anything, happened as a || result of the Defendants allegedly cooperating with police, such as an arrest, || criminal charges, and/or a conviction. (/d.) Additionally, Mr. Leslie’s complaint || did not state sufficient facts to ensure that his claims were not barred under Heck || v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

13 III. CONCLUSION 14 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is |} DISMISSED with prejudice.

17 Dated this 13 day of January, 2026.

19 An pod de 20 ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE