Klucka v. Rego et al

Filing 12

ORDER. Adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Denying 5 and 7 Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis with prejudice. Case terminated. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 DAVID KLUCKA, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 2:15-CV-1535 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. RANDALL REGO, et al., Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen’s report and recommendation 14 (ECF No. 10) regarding plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 5, 7). No 15 16 17 timely objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any 18 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 19 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review 20 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 21 States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 22 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 23 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 24 25 (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. This court finds that Magistrate Judge Leen properly invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to evaluate plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 10); see, e.g. Klucka v. Lippis, 1 Case No. 2:05-cv-01285-JCM-GWF (D. Nev. Nov. 29, 2006). Moreover, this court agrees with 2 the magistrate judge that the present case does not involve any “imminent danger of serious 3 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, plaintiff is precluded in this case from bringing 4 an action under § 1915. 5 6 7 8 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen, (ECF No. 10) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF Nos. 5, 7) be, and the same hereby are, DENIED with prejudice. 10 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 11 DATED October 18, 2016. 12 13 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?