Messaad v. Reno Justice Court et al

Filing 6

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting and adopting in full ECF No. 4 R&R; granting ECF No. 1 IFP application; directing Clerk to file ECF No. 1 -1 complaint; permitting the Fourth Amendment claim against Washoe Coun ty and Sheriff Allen to proceed; dismissing without prejudice, without leave to amend, the claims against Reno Justice Court and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all defendants; denying ECF No. 1 -2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/31/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

TARIK MESSAD,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 3:15-cv-00582-MMD-VPC

v.
RENO JUSTICE CENTER, et al.,

13

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

SUMMARY

17

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

18

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 4) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in

19

Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 1-

20

2). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 5) For the

21

reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the R&R in full.

22

II.

23

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is asserting a number of

24

constitutional claims arising out of his allegedly unlawful detention after a warrantless

25

arrest for gross misdemeanor assault. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5.) He is suing the Reno

26

Justice Court, Washoe County, and Washoe County Sheriff Chuck Allen (“Sheriff Allen”).

27

The relevant background information, which the Court adopts, is set out in the R&R.

28

(See ECF No. 4 at 3-4.)

1

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiff’s

7

objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

8

Magistrate Judge Cooke’s recommendations.

9

IV.

DISCUSSION

10

Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 5) does not address the ultimate recommendations

11

of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge noted in passing that Younger abstention

12

may become an issue later in litigation, and recommended permitting Plaintiff’s § 1983

13

claim based on the Fourth Amendment to move forward. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discussion

14

of Younger is not yet relevant to this Court’s decision. As he has not objected to any

15

other portion of the R&R, the Court will adopt it in full and allow Plaintiff’s Fourth

16

Amendment claim to proceed against Washoe County and Sheriff Allen.

17

V.

18

CONCLUSION
It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

19

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 4) be accepted and

20

adopted in full.

21
22

It is therefore that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
is granted.

23

It is further ordered that the Clerk file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1);

24

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim proceed against

25

Washoe County and Sheriff Allen;

26

It is further ordered that the claims set forth against the Reno Justice Court, and

27

the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all defendants, be dismissed

28

without prejudice, without leave to amend.
2

1
2
3

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 1-2)
be denied.
DATED THIS 31st day of August 2016.

4
5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3