Toodle v. Obama et al

Filing 8

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Hoffman's 3 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 4 Complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/3/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

SANDRA B. TOODLE,

9
10
11
12

2:14-CV-34 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
PRESIDENT BARRACK OBAMA, et
al.,

13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation. (Doc.

17

# 3). Plaintiff Sandra Toodle has not filed objections to the report, and the deadline to do so has

18

passed.

19

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

20

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

21

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

22

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

23

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

24

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

25

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

27

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

2

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

3

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

4

decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

5

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

6

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

7

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

8

to which no objection was filed).

9

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

10

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The magistrate aptly summarized

11

plaintiff’s history and the instant complaint as follows:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff has a history of litigation in the District of Nevada and has
had other, similar cases dismissed for raising fanciful claims. See
Toodle v. Queen Elizabeth II, et al., 2:13-cv-00599-MMD-NJK
(Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed as it was “rife with fanciful and
nonsensical allegations”); Toodle v. United States, et al., 2:03-cv00656-LRH-RJJ (dismissing complaint because the allegations were
“clearly fantastic and delusional”). Here, Plaintiff seeks $88 zillion
dollars in damages in order replenish a prior account opened in
Plaintiff’s behalf by Queen Elizabeth in the amount of $86 zillion.
Plaintiff claims that President Barack Obama had the money
transferred from her account into his own private account in a bank
located in Acapulco, Mexico. She further claims that Defendants
Gwendolyn Johnson and Sharon Johnson are paying unnamed
individuals $1000.00 from private healthcare accounts to open
security doors at Plaintiff’s housing complex to permit city
employees, state employees, and police officers to brutally rape
Plaintiff for purposes of producing pornographic materials.

21
(Doc. # 3, at 2).
22
Instead of filing objections, plaintiff has filed an “amendment” alleging, inter alia, that the
23
Gold Coast Casino and Bank of America are issuing checks using her money to various schools, that
24
the government has established a rehabilitation clinic in her apartment without her permission, and
25
that she is being raped and tortured by unidentified individuals. (See doc. # 6). In addition, plaintiff
26
has sent a letter to the court alleging that the undersigned is using her bank card to purchase meals
27
at Caesar’s Palace, and requesting a similar card be issued to her. Plaintiff further alleges that
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

unidentified individuals are “gasing” [sic] her residence. (See doc. # 7). The court agrees that

2

plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful and based on delusional factual scenarios.

3
4

Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause
appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in full.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Hoffman’s report

7
8
9
10

and recommendation (doc. # 3) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (doc. # 4) be, and the same hereby
is, DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED March 3, 2014.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-