Bailey v. Nevada Parole Board et al

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 6 Objection, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 5 the Report and Recommendation, is ADOPTED in full. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:22-cv-00306-GMN-VCF Document 8 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

ANTHONY BAILEY,
4
5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.
NEVADA PAROLE BOARD, et al.,

7
8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:22-cv-00306-GMN-VCF
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Bailey’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Objection, (ECF

11

No. 6), to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 5),

12

recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), with prejudice for

13

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

14
15
16

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Objection, and
ADOPTS in full the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

17

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

18

D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo

19

determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,

20

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate

21

Judge.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b).

22

Local Rule IB 3–2 requires a party to file “specific written objections” to a Report and

23

Recommendation. See also Greene v. People of California, No. 2:15–cv–378, 2015 WL

24

4393897, at *1 (D. Nev. July 16, 2015). “Numerous courts have held that a general objection

25

to the entirety of a magistrate judge’s report has the same effect as a failure to object.”

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:22-cv-00306-GMN-VCF Document 8 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-cv-401, 2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Aug. 15, 2013)

2

(collecting cases). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or

3

recommendation to which the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify

4

the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed

5

determination is found. See Sullivan v. Schriro, 04-cv-1517, 2006 WL 1516005, at *3–5 (D.

6

Ariz. May 30, 2006). An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the

7

briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. See DeJarlais v. King, No. 15-cv-1005,

8

2015 WL 8180582, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2015) (determining that the plaintiff filed a general

9

objection which relieved the court of conducting a de novo review where the plaintiff’s

10

objection consisted of incorporating the facts, claims, and arguments made in his previous

11

filings); see also Grady v. Biter, No. 13-cv-2479, 2016 WL 537175, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10,

12

2016). Furthermore, “any objections that ‘merely repeat the arguments already rejected by’ the

13

Magistrate Judge must be overruled because ‘[o]bjections to a magistrate’s Findings and

14

Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate the case.” Williams v.

15

Navarro, No. 18-cv-1581, 2022 WL 16758479, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022) (quoting

16

Hagberg v. Astrue, No. 09-cv-01, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2009).

17

Here, Plaintiff filed a general Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

18

Recommendation because his Objection merely incorporates by reference the arguments he

19

made in his previous filings. (Obj. at 1, ECF No. 6). Plaintiff’s Objection fails to identify with

20

any degree of specificity how, where, and why the Magistrate Judge erred. See DeJarlais v.

21

King, 2015 WL 8180582, at *1. Further, the Magistrate Judge already considered and rejected

22

the arguments Plaintiff made in his previous filings. See Williams, 2022 WL 3386595, at *1.

23
24

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to make any specific objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court need not conduct a de novo

25

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:22-cv-00306-GMN-VCF Document 8 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

review. Even still, the Court did perform a de novo review of the entire record in this matter

2

and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

3

I.

CONCLUSION

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection, (ECF No. 6), is DENIED.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 5), is

6

ADOPTED in full.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case.

8

17 day of January, 2023.
DATED this _____

9
10
11

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3