Reaves v. Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB - Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the # 4 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

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

13
14
15

Case No. 3:14-cv-00557-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00594-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00658-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:14-cv-00671-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00027-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00033-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00049-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00052-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00053-MMD-WGC
Case No. 3:15-cv-00078-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

16
17
18

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

19

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 3) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s initiation of forty-seven

20

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

21

Department of Veteran Affairs, Second Judicial Security Officers, Western Union, VA

22

Police, VA Sierra Nevada Healthcare Services, VA Medical Center, the Social Security

23

Administration, Men’s Shelter of Reno, Nevada, Barak Obama, TEAM, AMVET, JOH

24

Blankenship, Criminal Division, Judge, District Attorney, San Mateo County, Veterans

25

Services, Reno International Airport, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, U.S. Airways,

26

Inc., American Airlines, TSA, Amtrak, VA Regional Offices, Hilton Gardens Inn, DAV,

27

Motel 6, Jose Rivero, Mrs. Becky, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Navy Reserve. No objection to

28

the R&R has been filed.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

which no objection was filed).

19

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

20

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R points out that in

21

this action initiated, the Court ordered that Plaintiff either pay the filing fee or submit a

22

proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. (3:14-cv-00557-MMD-WGC, dkt. no. 3.)

23

In response to the Court's order, Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but it is largely

24

illegible, does not state facts as to his poverty with any particularity, and does not appear

25

to have been signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury. (3:14-cv-00557-MMD-WGC,

26

dkt. no. 4.) As further discussed in Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R, for the most part, the

27

“initiating documents” consist of pages that appear to vaguely-mimic the format of a

28

complaint, sometimes including a caption, but then just contain random words such as
2

1

“terrorism” and “corruption,” or dates and numbers with scribbled notes that are by and

2

large indecipherable. (See id.) Some of the “initiating documents” also include copies of

3

blank forms from various government agencies such as instructions for depositing social

4

security checks (see id.), forms regarding identity theft and instructions from the Social

5

Security Administration (see, e.g., 3:14-cv-00658-MMD-WGC, dkt. no. 1-1), and even

6

receipts from fast food restaurants and other stores (see dkt. no. 3:14-cv-00595-RCJ-

7

WGC at dkt. no. 1-1 at 7). Others contain a caption page and nothing else. (See 3:14-cv-

8

00659-RCJ-WGC at dkt. no. 1-1, 3:15-cv-00052-MMD-WGC at dkt. no. 1-1.) The Court

9

agrees that each of these actions should be dismissed because they are clearly frivolous

10

and fail to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. The actions are

11

incomprehensible, and contain no factual allegations, but merely words on pages,

12

occasionally accompanied by a document that may or may not have any relevance to

13

the words contained on the associated pages. Upon reviewing the R&R and Plaintiff’s

14

filings in his cases before this Court, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the

15

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

16

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

17

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 3) is accepted and

18

adopted in its entirety.

19
20

It is further ordered that each of plaintiff’s complaints listed above is dismissed
with prejudice.

21

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

22

DATED THIS 27th day of April 2015.

23
24

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3