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)
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?