Morris v. Nevada Gaming Control Board et al

Filing 5

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke ECF No. 3 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ECF No. 3 is granted; the Clerk file the complaint ECF No. 1 -1; the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRENT MORRIS,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00604-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

NEVADA GAMING CONTROL BOARD,
12

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendant.
13
14

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

15

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

16

In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

17

recommends granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing

18

the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff filed his objection thereto on July 19, 2017 (ECF

19

No. 4).

The R&R

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

In light of plaintiff’s objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to

26

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s recommendations. Judge Cooke

27

found that Plaintiff filed two nearly identical cases in this district: Morris v. Orleans Hotel

28

and Casino, case no. 2:12-cv-01683-JCM-CWH; and Morris v. Caberto, case no. 2:16-

1

cv-02416-GMN-NJK. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Plaintiff contends that this Court granted him

2

leave to file claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the Court dismissed his petition for writ

3

of habeas corpus in case no. 3:16-cv-00212-MMD-WGC. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) In that case,

4

the Court dismissed the petition and noted that petitioner “may have a claim that is

5

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and directed the Clerk to send petitioner the proper

6

civil rights complaint form. (Moriss v. Baca, case no. 3:16-cv-00212-MMD-WGC (ECF

7

No. 6 at 1-2).) However, the Court did not grant leave for Plaintiff file duplicative actions

8

as he has done by initiating this action. Therefore, this Court finds good cause to adopt

9

the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full for the reasons articulated in the R&R.

10

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

11

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 3) is accepted and

12

adopted in its entirety.

13
14

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3)
is granted.

15

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

16

It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

17

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

18

DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017.

19
20
21

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2