Chatman v. AM/PM et al

Filing 11

ORDER that 6 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons stated in this Order and the Report, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ERIC CHATMAN,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:18-cv-00451-RFB-CWH

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

AM/PM et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Before this Court is consideration of the Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 6) which
recommends dismissing this action and the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (ECF No. 7).

17

A district 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). A party may file specific

19

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is

21

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

22

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local

23

Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct

24

“any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

25

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

The Court has reviewed the record in the case de novo. The Court has also reviewed the

27

Report and the Objections. The Court finds that the Objections do not raise substantive or

28

persuasive arguments as to the reasonable findings and recommendation of the Report. The

1

Objections essentially reassert the deficient allegations of the Complaint. The Court finds that

2

Plaintiff’s claims are outside of the applicable statute of limitations. The Court also finds that the

3

Plaintiff’s claims do not involve state action as required for a Section 1983 claim. Brunette v.

4

Humane Soc'y, 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court does not find that these

5

deficiencies can be cured by amendment.

6
7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons stated in this Order and the Report, this

9

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED without prejudice

10

as moot. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.

11
12

DATED: October 18, 2018.
______________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2