Tagle v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 11

ORDER. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is denied. Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days. Payment of filing fees due 11/22/2017. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00510-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et. al.,

12

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating Plaintiff’s

16

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff timely filed his objections to the R&R

17

on September 6, 2017 (ECF Nos. 4, 5).1

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s recommendation. The Magistrate

27

Judge correctly found that the Court has dismissed civil actions initiated by Plaintiff in at

28

1Plaintiff

filed two objections that appear almost identical. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.)

1

least three cases, and that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not plausibly allege he is

2

under imminent danger or serious physical injuries. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Accordingly, the

3

Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

4

pauperis. Upon reviewing the Recommendation and the proposed complaint, this Court

5

finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 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 full.

9

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF

10

No. 1) is denied. Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s

11

failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.

12

DATED THIS 23rd day of October 2017.

13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2