Lucio v. State of Nevada

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition to Challenge Senate Bill 182 (ECF No. 1 -1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 8/1/2022.; Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-01088-CDS-EJY Document 5 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 JESSE L. LUCIO, Plaintiff, 6 7 Case No.: 2:22-cv-01088-CDS-EJY v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Order Adopting Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 3] Defendants. 9 10 11 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate 12 Judge Elayna J. Youchah which was issued on July 14, 2022. ECF No. 3. In the R&R, the 13 Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 14 be denied a moot, and the Petition to Challenge Senate Bill 182 (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with 15 prejudice. Id at 4. The deadline for any party to object to that recommendation was July 28, 16 2022, and no party filed an objection or asked to extend the deadline to do so. 17 While review is not required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless 18 objections are filed, 1 I nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the arguments set forth in the 19 R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When reviewing the order of a magistrate judge, the 20 order should only be set aside if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Laxalt v. McClatchy, 602 F. Supp. 214, 216 (D. Nev. 22 23 24 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Case 2:22-cv-01088-CDS-EJY Document 5 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2 1 1985). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm 2 conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 3 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th 4 Cir. 1992). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, 5 case law or rules of procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-002246 RCJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129489, 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014). Here, I find 7 that Judge Youchah sets forth the proper legal analysis which is not clearly erroneous or 8 contrary to the law. Accordingly, 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 10 Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 12 No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition to Challenge Senate Bill 182 (ECF 14 No. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 DATED this 1st day of August, 2022. 17 18 ______________________________________ Cristina D. Silva United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?