Chang v. Coffee et al

Filing 6

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Koppe's 5 Report and Recommendation. This case is Dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/7/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MIN SOON CHANG,

Case No. 2:16-CV-16 JCM (NJK)

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

ORDER

v.
SCOTT L. COFFEE, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 5). Pro se plaintiff Min Soon Chang (“plaintiff”) has not filed an objection,

15

and the time to do so has since passed.

16

This case involves civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Clark

17

County public defender Philip Kohn and deputy public defender Scott Coffee (collectively, as

18

“defendants”).

19

Coffee’s alleged misconduct while representing plaintiff in the underlying criminal action. (ECF

20

No. 3).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges various claims against defendants arising from

21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Magistrate Judge Koppe conducted a preliminary

22

screening of plaintiff’s case. (ECF No. 5). The magistrate found that plaintiff’s claims against

23

defendant Coffee failed as a matter of law because Coffee (in representing plaintiff in the

24

underlying state proceeding) was not acting under color of state law, which is a threshold

25

requirement.

26

As to defendant Kohn, the magistrate found plaintiff’s claims to be barred because plaintiff

27

failed to allege (and could not allege) that his conviction had been invalidated through further

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

proceedings.1 (ECF No. 5). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that the case be

2

dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law. (ECF No. 5).

3

As an initial matter, the court acknowledges that plaintiff’s complaint was filed pro se and

4

is therefore held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A

5

document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

6

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”)

7

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “pro se litigants in an ordinary civil

8

case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v.

9

Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

15

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

16

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

17

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

18

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

19

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

20

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

21

objections were made).

22

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

23

whether to adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe.

24

recommendation and underlying complaint, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the

25

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

26
27
28
1

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
-2-

Upon reviewing the

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s

3
4
5

report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6

The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

7

DATED September 7, 2016.

8
9

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-