Curtis v. Progressive Ins et al

Filing 7

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

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

THOMAS CURTIS,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:20-cv-00700-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
PROGRESSIVE INS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Curtis brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before

12

the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United

13

States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 5), recommending the Court grant

14

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), but dismiss his

15

Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff had until February 11, 2021 to file an

16

objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as

17

explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this case.

18

The 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

fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to

21

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas

22

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

23

1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and

24

recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the

25
26
27
28

1There

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

1

findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory

2

Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no

3

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

4

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is

5

satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin first recommends

6

granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application because her review of it indicates he cannot pay the

7

filing fee. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Judge Baldwin then recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s

8

Complaint because it does not satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) pleading standard. (Id.

9

at 3-4.) Judge Baldwin alternatively recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint

10

because he attempts to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private parties, and

11

thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court agrees

12

with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will

13

adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF

14
15

No. 5) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF

16
17

No. 1) is granted.

18

The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

19

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, in its

20

entirety, with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

21
22
23

case.
DATED THIS 18th Day of February 2021.

24
25
26
27

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2