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)

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-