Vaoga v. State Of California et al

Filing 11

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

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

COLEMAN JEFFERSON VAOGA,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:21-cv-00377-MMD-CLB
ORDER

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Pro se Plaintiff Coleman Vaoga submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.

12

§ 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United

13

States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 10 (“R&R”)), recommending that

14

Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) be granted, his complaint

15

(ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with prejudice, and that this action be closed, and judgment

16

entered accordingly. Vaoga had until January 3, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no

17

objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court

18

adopts the R&R in full and will close this case.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted as he cannot pay the filling

4

fee. (ECF No. 10 at 1-2.) Judge Baldwin further recommends Vaoga’s complaint be

5

dismissed with prejudiced as he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

6

granted and amendment would be futile. (Id. at 3-4.) The Court agrees with Judge

7

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

8

R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation

9
10

(ECF No. 10) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff Coleman Vaoga’s application to proceed in forma

11
12

pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted.

13

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

14

It is further ordered that Vaoga’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with

15

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

16
17
18

case.
DATED THIS 10th Day of January 2022.

19
20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2