Lietzke v. City of Montgomery et al

Filing 8

ORDERED, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No 1 ) is grant ed. It is further ordered that the Clerk file the Complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

BILL LIETZKE

Case No. 3:17-cv-00040-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10

CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

11
Defendants.
12
13

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

14

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed

15

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

16

February 10, 2017 to file an objection (“Objection”). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed his first

17

objection on February 27, 2017 (ECF No. 4), and filed his second objection on April 28,

18

2017 (ECF No. 7). While Plaintiff’s objections were untimely, the Court has considered

19

his objections.

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). In light of Plaintiff’s

25

objection, the Court engages in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

26

Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Recommendation.

27

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed for lack of

28

personal jurisdiction because Plaintiff and defendants are alleged to be residents of

1

Alabama and there are no allegations of contacts with Nevada. Plaintiff relies on general

2

case law governing personal jurisdiction, but it is clear that this Court lacks personal

3

jurisdiction over named out of state defendants. Upon reviewing the Recommendation

4

and Plaintiff’s filings, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

5

Recommendation in full.

6

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

7

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and

8

adopted in its entirety.

9
10

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No 1) is
granted.

11

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

12

It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

13

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

14

DATED THIS 1st day of May 2017.

15
16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2