Reaves v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 5

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE - Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the # 3 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Each of plaintiff's complaints is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LARRY D. REAVES,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00602-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00603-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00604-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00609-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00646-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00657-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00673-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00025-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00028-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00048-MMD-VPC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00055-MMD-VPC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

18
19

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

20

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 4) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s initiation of forty-seven

21

separate cases in this District. The Defendants include various entities, including the

22

Department of Veteran Affairs, Greyhound Bus Lines, President Obama, the Governor of

23

an unnamed state, Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”), Western Union, various local

24

casinos and hotels, state court security guards, both the San Jose and Reno

25

International Airports, the United States Post Office, and many other entities and

26

individuals. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

27

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

28

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

1

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

2

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

3

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

4

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

5

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

6

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

7

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

8

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

9

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

10

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

11

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

12

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

13

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

14

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

15

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

16

which no objection was filed).

17

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

18

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. As discussed in Magistrate

19

Judge Cooke’s R&R, in each of plaintiff’s cases, the initiating documents are merely

20

nonsensical words and numbers sprawled on pieces of paper, sometimes with a copy of

21

a bus ticket or other receipt of some kind. (See, e.g., 3:14-cv-00617-RCJ-VPC); 3:14-cv-

22

00673-MMD-VPC). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) states that a complaint must contain a short and

23

plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a claim showing that plaintiff is

24

entitled to relief, and the relief sought. Plaintiffs’ documents contain mere gibberish, and

25

the sheer number of cases initiated since October 2014 are a clear indication that

26

plaintiff’s claims, even if they were clearly articulated, would likely be based on

27

conclusions that are untenable. "It is not the court's job to wade through pages of

28

incoherent gobbledy-gook in search of a single claim that may have merit." Shalla! v.
2

1

Gates, 254 2 F.R.D. 140, 143 n. 6 (D.D.C. 2008). Upon reviewing the R&R and the

2

filings in Plaintiffs’ cases, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate

3

Judge’s R&R in full.

4

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

5

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 4) is accepted and

6

adopted in its entirety.

7
8
9
10

It is further ordered that each of plaintiff’s complaints listed above is dismissed
with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of April 2015.

11
12
13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3