Fulkerson v. Geico
ORDER - Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9 ) is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Submit (ECF No. 10 ) and Motion for Service and Proceed to Discovery (ECF No. 10 -1) are denied as moot. Clerk is directed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/17/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:20-cv-00168-MMD-CLB Document 12 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00168-MMD-CLB
Pro se Plaintiff Heath Fulkerson filed an amended complaint against Defendant
Geico Advantage Insurance Company (“Geico”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for a purported
contract dispute. (ECF No. 9 (“Amended Complaint”).) Plaintiff also filed a motion to
submit (ECF No. 10 (“Submit Motion”)) and a motion for service and proceed to discovery
(ECF No. 10-1 (“Motion”)). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin, recommending the Court dismiss the
Amended Complaint with prejudice, and deny Plaintiff’s Submit Motion and Motion as
moot. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff had until October 28, 2020, to file an objection to the R&R,
but has not done so. The Court will adopt the R&R in full.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to
conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114
(9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings
and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the
findings and recommendations.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983)
Case 3:20-cv-00168-MMD-CLB Document 12 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2
(providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation”).
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing
the Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff “does
not allege facts that Geico denied coverage with an actual or implied awareness that there
was no reasonable basis supporting [Geico’s] decision.” (ECF No. 11 at 4.) The Court
agrees with Judge Baldwin. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state facts that show
Geico acted in bad faith and did not have a reasonable basis for denying Plaintiff’s
insurance claim. See Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 863 F.
Supp. 1237 (D. Nev. 1994). Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed with
prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming a
district court’s decision to dismiss both complaints with prejudice was not an abuse of the
court’s discretion as amendment would be futile). Having reviewed the R&R and the
record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Magistrate Judge Carla L.
Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is accepted and adopted in its
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to submit (ECF No. 10) and motion for
service and proceed to discovery (ECF No. 10-1) are denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgement accordingly.
DATED THIS 17th Day of November 2020.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?