Reaves v. Rivero et al
Filing
4
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB - 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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?