Patrocinio Mendoza v. Damian R. Sheets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA PATROCINIO MENDOZA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00585-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 3) DAMIAN R. SHEETS, Defendant.

10 Plaintiff Patrocinio Mendoza brings this action against Defendant Damian R. Sheets, asserting a claim of legal malpractice. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissing Mr. Mendoza’s claim with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying Mr. Mendoza’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as moot. (ECF No. 3.)

16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s R&R. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 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).

26 Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R and his time to do so has now expired. (ECF No. 3.)

1 Il. ANALYSIS 2 Judge Baldwin found that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Mr. || Mendoza’s claim, thus the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

4 || (ECF No. 3.) Judge Baldwin explained that Mr. Mendoza’s legal malpractice claim || arises under state law. (Id.) As a result, there is no federal question jurisdiction || under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Id.) Additionally, because both parties are citizens of || Nevada and the amount in controversy is only $12,500.00, there is no diversity || jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.) The Court agrees with the magistrate || judge's reasoning and adopts her R&R in full.

10 III. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Mendoza’s application to proceed in || forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no filing fee be imposed.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk FILE the complaint. (ECF No. 1- 15 1.)

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED with 17 prejudice. (ECF No. 1-1.)

18 IT IS FURTHER KINDLY ORDERED that the Clerk CLOSE this case.

20 Dated this 15th day of January 2026.

23 ANNER TRAUM 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE