Swint v. Oregon Lottery Commission et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Youchah's #3 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Swint's #1 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. This case is now closed. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 3/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4 Robert James Swint, et al.,

Plaintiffs

5
6

v.

7 Oregon Lottery Commission, et al.,
8

Case No. 2:24-cv-00433-CDS-EJY
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation and Closing Case
[ECF Nos. 1, 3]

Defendants

9
10

Plaintiffs Robert and Sandra Swint allege “unlawful crisscross apple saucing” against an

11 array of defendants. Because the Swints apply to proceed in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Elayna
12 Youchah screened the complaint and recommends that it be dismissed with prejudice. R&R, ECF
13 No. 3.
14

Under this district’s local rules, the Swints had until March 22, 2024 to file any

15 objections to the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object
16 to an R&R must file objections within fourteen days). As of the date of this order, the plaintiffs
17 have neither objected to the R&R nor requested more time to do so. And “no review is required of
18 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone,
19 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United
20 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). I nonetheless reviewed Judge Youchah’s
21 R&R and agree with her findings.
22

As Judge Youchah correctly summarized, the Swints’ filing is comprised of

23 incomprehensible gibberish, and no actual facts are alleged. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1-1.
24 Pro se litigants should be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the defective
25 complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
26 Here, plaintiffs’ mostly indecipherable complaint is nothing more than gibberish that fails to state

1 a cognizable claim under federal law. No amendment can cure these defects. Amendment would
2 thus be futile and therefore denied.
Conclusion

3
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and

5 recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ADOPTED in its entirety. Swint’s application to proceed in
6 forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.
7

This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to enter

8 judgment accordingly and to close this case.
9

Dated: March 25, 2024

10
11
12

Cristina D. Silva
United States District Judge

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

2