Johnson v. Byers et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CLARENCE D. JOHNSON, JR.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00076-MMD-WGC
ANGELA BYERS, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Clarence D. Johnson, Jr. 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 William G. Cobb (ECF No. 6), recommending Johnson’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, dismissing the action with prejudice
and denying the remaining motions (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 4, 5) as moot. Johnson had
until April 12, 2021 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 deny
Johnson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss this action with prejudice,
and deny the remaining pending motions.
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.”).
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends the application
to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because Johnson submitted the incorrect form
and it was not signed. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Judge Cobb also recommends the action be
dismissed with prejudice because there is no legal basis for any claim asserted and the
documents are nonsensical and frivolous, with the other pending motions denied as moot.
(Id.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 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 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.
It is further ordered that the action is dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that the remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-4, 1-5,
4, 5) are denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED THIS 27th Day of April 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?