Vaoga v. State Of California et al
ORDERED that Judge Carla L. Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff Coleman Vaoga's IFP application (ECF No. 6 ) is granted. Clerk is directed to file Vaoga 9;s complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). Vaoga's complaint (ECF No. 1 -1) is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:21-cv-00377-MMD-CLB Document 11 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
COLEMAN JEFFERSON VAOGA,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00377-MMD-CLB
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Coleman Vaoga submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 10 (“R&R”)), recommending that
Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) be granted, his complaint
(ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with prejudice, and that this action be closed, and judgment
entered accordingly. Vaoga had until January 3, 2022, 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 in full and will close 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
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 3:21-cv-00377-MMD-CLB Document 11 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends that
Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted as he cannot pay the filling
fee. (ECF No. 10 at 1-2.) Judge Baldwin further recommends Vaoga’s complaint be
dismissed with prejudiced as he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and amendment would be futile. (Id. at 3-4.) 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 Carla L. Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 10) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff Coleman Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file Vaoga’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that Vaoga’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this
DATED THIS 10th Day of January 2022.
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?