Goodrum v. Charles Woodman Law Firm et al
ORDER that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 ) is accepted and adopted in full; Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is granted; Plaintiff's motion for appointmen t of counsel (ECF No. 1 -2) is denied as moot; Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 3 ) is dismissed without prejudice, and without leave to amend; Clerk directed to enter judgment accordingly close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)
Case 3:20-cv-00573-MMD-CLB Document 5 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MITCHELL KEITH GOODRUM,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00573-MMD-CLB
CHARLES WOODMAN LAW FIRM, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Mitchell Keith Goodrum brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 4), recommending Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until
November 2, 2020 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.
For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend.
The 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,
1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“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.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory
Committee Notes (1983) (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.”).
Case 3:20-cv-00573-MMD-CLB Document 5 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 2
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 that
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted because Plaintiff has
demonstrated he cannot pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) However, Judge Baldwin
recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s civil rights claim both because Plaintiff’s requested
relief would require him to file a habeas corpus action, and because “§ 1983 is not a
backdoor through which a federal court may overturn a state court conviction or award
relief related to the fact or duration of a sentence.” (Id. at 4.) Moreover, Judge Baldwin
found amendment would be futile because Plaintiff simply cannot obtain the relief he
seeks in this § 1983 case. Additionally, Judge Baldwin recommends that Plaintiff’s motion
for appointment of counsel be denied as moot because Defendants are not state actors
for the purposes of § 1983. (Id. at 5.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having
reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 3) is dismissed
without prejudice, and without leave to amend.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly close this case.
DATED THIS 16th 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?