Russell v. Albright et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting and accepting 3 Report and Recommendation. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/9/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 3:13-cv-00027-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.

14

JUDGE HAROLD G. ALBRIGHT, et. al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation

18

(“R&R”), (dkt. no. 3), regarding Plaintiff Russell's Complaint and Application to Proceed

19

in forma pauperis. (Dkt. no. 1.) Russell filed a timely objection to Judge Cobb's R&R on

20

February 27, 2013. (Dkt. no. 4.)

21

The Court has considered Russell’s objections and conducted a de novo review

22

of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Local Rule

23

IB 3–2, and finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb's R&R in full.

24

Russell alleges that Judge Harold G. Albright of the Reno Justice Court entered a

25

protective order against him in 2009. He argues that entry of this order exceeded the

26

court’s jurisdiction because he was living in Utah at that time. He also names Reno

27

Justice Court Judge Barbara K. Finley as a defendant because she renewed the

28

protective order, and further names the County Commission and the State of Nevada as

1

defendants because they were allegedly alerted to the lack of jurisdiction and failed to

2

act. Russell brings his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

Judge Cobb granted Russell's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Cobb

4

dismissed Russell’s Complaint with prejudice because: (1) Judge Albright and Judge

5

Finley are entitled to absolute immunity; (2) the State of Nevada is not a person and

6

therefore cannot be sued pursuant to § 1983; and (3) Russell’s allegations against the

7

County Commission did not meet the threshold standard of plausibility required by Bell

8

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

9

The Court agrees with Judge Cobb that Russell's Complaint must be dismissed

10

with prejudice for the reasons stated in the R&R. This is not a determination of the merits

11

of Russell’s case. In his objection to the R&R, Russell represented that he is attempting

12

to seek legal representation and requested assistance from the Court to help him amend

13

his Complaint. However, amendment is futile in this case.

14
15
16
17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Cobb's Report and
Recommendation, (dkt. no. 3), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.
DATED THIS 9th day of August 2013.

18
19
20
21

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2