Curtis v. The Hughes Corporation

Filing 4

ORDER Adopting #3 Report and Recommendation and Denying as moot #1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The [1-1] Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) Modified text on 1/11/2021 (SLD).

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-02133-APG-DJA Document 4 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 THOMAS W. CURTIS, 4 Plaintiff Case No.: 2:20-cv-02133-APG-DJA Order Accepting Report and Recommendation 5 v. [ECF No. 3] 6 THE HUGHES CORPORATION, 7 8 Defendant On December 17, 2020, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I dismiss plaintiff 9 Thomas Curtis’s complaint with prejudice because the complaint is frivolous. ECF No. 3. He 10 also recommends that I deny as moot Curtis’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. 11 Curtis did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and 12 recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo 13 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 14 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 15 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 16 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Albregts’ report and recommendation 18 (ECF No. 3) is accepted, plaintiff Thomas Curtis’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED, and 19 his application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot. The clerk of 20 court is instructed to close this case. 21 DATED this 8th day of January, 2021. 22 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?