Curtis v. Progressive Ins et al
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's Co mplaint (ECF No. 1 -1). Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) is dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/18/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:20-cv-00700-MMD-CLB Document 7 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:20-cv-00700-MMD-CLB
PROGRESSIVE INS, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Curtis 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. 5), recommending the Court grant
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), but dismiss his
Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff had until February 11, 2021 to file an
objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as
explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this case.
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
is a notation on the docket indicating that the R&R was returned to the Clerk
of Court because Plaintiff no longer resides at the address he provided. (ECF No. 6.)
However, LR IA 3-1 requires a pro se litigant like Plaintiff to immediately file with the Court
a written change of address notification whenever his address changes, and warns him
that the Court may dismiss his case if he does not. See id. Thus, the Court will proceed
with reviewing and adopting the R&R now.
Case 3:20-cv-00700-MMD-CLB Document 7 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 2
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.”).
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 first recommends
granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application because her review of it indicates he cannot pay the
filing fee. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Judge Baldwin then recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s
Complaint because it does not satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) pleading standard. (Id.
at 3-4.) Judge Baldwin alternatively recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint
because he attempts to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private parties, and
thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 4-5.) 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. 5) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, in its
entirety, with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this
DATED THIS 18th Day of February 2021.
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?