Halleman v. Union Pacific Railroad et al
ORDER - Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Halleman's IFP Application (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/16/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)
Case 3:22-cv-00345-MMD-CLB Document 5 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CUTTER FURZE HALLEMAN,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00345-MMD-CLB
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Cutter Furze Halleman brings this action against Defendants under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 4), recommending
that the Court grant Halleman’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP
Application”)), and dismiss the case with prejudice because Halleman failed to state any
colorable claims in his Complaint (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4). Halleman’s objection to the R&R was
due September 7, 2022. To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as
explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full.
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
Case 3:22-cv-00345-MMD-CLB Document 5 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2
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 was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and
is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. To start, Halleman’s IFP Application will
be granted because he is unable to pay the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Second,
Judge Baldwin correctly found that Halleman’s Complaint is incomprehensible, confusing,
and contains conclusory and vague statements. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 4.) The Court is unable
to identify the legal or factual basis for his claims, and the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . [and] a demand for
the relief sought”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Accordingly, the
Court will adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full and dismiss the case with prejudice, as
amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Halleman’s IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED THIS 16th Day of September 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?