Ismael v. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals et al

Filing 29

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 24 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ISMAEL PADILLA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:23-cv-01511-GMN-BNW
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is the Order and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF

10

No. 24), from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, which recommends denying

11

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, (ECF No. 23), because Plaintiff has not yet been

12

approved to proceed in forma pauperis, or paid the $405 filing fee. The Magistrate Judge must

13

review Plaintiff’s Complaint and approve his application to proceed in forma pauperis before

14

the Court can evaluate the merits of his Motion for Injunctive Relief.

15

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

16

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

17

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

18

determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings

19

and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate

20

judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

21

findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R.

22

IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any

23

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

24

140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

25

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been
Page 1 of 2

1

filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

The pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen all prior Denied and Dismissed Motions,

3

which the Court will liberally construe as an objection to the R&R. (See ECF No. 26). In her

4

Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that before any other action can be

5

taken in this case, Plaintiff must submit a complete action to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay

6

the $405 filing fee. Plaintiff has submitted an amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

7

(ECF No. 25), which will be reviewed by the Magistrate Judge in the normal course.

8

Plaintiff’s Objection argues, among other things, that he was subject to an

9

unconstitutional prosecution. However, before ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive

10

Relief, the Magistrate Judge must review Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Proceed In

11

Forma Pauperis to determine whether his allegations state a claim for relief. A motion for

12

injunctive relief requires the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits

13

of his claim. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and advises

14

Plaintiff that his Motion may be refiled after his application to proceed in forma pauperis is

15

approved, or he pays the filing fee.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, (ECF No.
23), is DENIED without prejudice.
8 day of May, 2024.
Dated this ____

23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2