Johnson v. Byers et al

Filing 7

ORDER - Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6 ) is accepted and adopted in full. The Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3 ) is denied. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 1 -2, 1 -4, 1 -5, 4 , 5 ) are denied as moot. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/27/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, JR.,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 3:21-cv-00076-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ANGELA BYERS, et al.,
Defendants.

11

Pro se Plaintiff Clarence D. Johnson, Jr. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12

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

13

United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 6), recommending Johnson’s

14

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, dismissing the action with prejudice

15

and denying the remaining motions (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 4, 5) as moot. Johnson had

16

until April 12, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

17

For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny

18

Johnson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss this action with prejudice,

19

and deny the remaining pending motions.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends the application

5

to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because Johnson submitted the incorrect form

6

and it was not signed. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Judge Cobb also recommends the action be

7

dismissed with prejudice because there is no legal basis for any claim asserted and the

8

documents are nonsensical and frivolous, with the other pending motions denied as moot.

9

(Id.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this

10
11
12
13
14

case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
6) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Johnson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 3) is denied.

15

It is further ordered that the action is dismissed with prejudice.

16

It is further ordered that the remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-4, 1-5,

17

4, 5) are denied as moot.

18

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

19

DATED THIS 27th Day of April 2021.

20
21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2