Belk v. Federal Government

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Hoffmans report and recommendation 4 be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint 1 -1 be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/1/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JIMMIE D. BELK,

Case No. 2:15-CV-543 JCM (CWH)

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation.
(Doc. # 4). Plaintiff Jimmie Belk filed an objection. (Doc. # 6).

15

On April 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hoffman granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in

16

forma pauperis and ordered the clerk of court to file plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 1-1). Magistrate

17

Judge Hoffman recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice because

18

“Plaintiff’s complaint is fanciful, based on delusional factual scenarios, and fails to state a claim

19

upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. # 6).

20

Plaintiff filed an objection that he would like to have $14 billion, a chalk board, four

21

engineers, and twelve science teachers to show the court how he can help the federal government

22

to solve the drought and end hunger.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

“any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

2

140, 149 (1985).

3

The court finds that Magistrate Judge Hoffman did not err in recommending that plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s complaint simply states that it offers a

4

complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

5

“solution” to the apparent misuse of the water supply in Lake Mead and an unidentified problem

6

at the “U.S. and Mexico border.” Plaintiff makes no request for any type of relief, nor could he.

7
8
9

Therefore, after reviewing Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report, defendant’s objections, and
the underlying complaint de novo, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

11

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (doc. # 4) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in full.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (doc. # 1-1) be, and the same

13
14
15
16

hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice.
DATED July 1, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-