Edwards v. Hasslehoff

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 3 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1 -1 the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1 plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 GEORGE GERAINE EDWARDS, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:17-CV-2267 JCM (NJK) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. DAVID HASSLEHOFF, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation (R&R), 14 recommending that pro se plaintiff George Edwards’s complaint (ECF Nos. 1-1) be dismissed 15 with prejudice, and application to proceed in forma pauperis denied. (ECF No. 3). No objections 16 have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed by over two months. 17 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 19 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 20 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at 23 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 24 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 25 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 26 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 27 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 28 objections were made). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the complaint and the R&R and has determined that 2 adopting the R&R is merited. Plaintiff purports to bring claims against David Hasslehoff, alleging 3 that he forced her to become homeless and raped her to fulfill a sexual fetish. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). 4 Plaintiff has previously sued Mr. Hasslehoff in this court based on allegations that he impregnated 5 her without her consent. See Edwards v. Hasslehoff, No. 2:14-cv-2169-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.). In 6 that case, Magistrate Judge Leen recommended the complaint be dismissed “because [plaintiff’s] 7 claims are fantastic and delusional.” Id., ECF No. 2 at 3. So too here. 8 In accordance with Judge Koppe’s recommendation, in light of the frivolous, delusional, 9 and wholly implausible nature of plaintiff’s claims, the complaint will be dismissed and the 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis denied as moot. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot. DATED November 9, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?