Hood v. Friel et al
ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. #4 ) is accepted and adopted in full. The Clerk of Court is further directed to file the complaint (ECF No. #1 -1). It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed. Claims 1 and 2 are dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Claim 3 is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/15/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PERRY A. HOOD,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00486-MMD-CLB
JOHN J. FRIEL, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Perry A. Hood, who is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 dismiss Hood’s complaint. 1 Nunn had
until November 1, 2023, 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
dismisses this action without prejudice.
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is
satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See 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). Here, Judge Baldwin
recommends dismissing the three claims asserted in the complaint. (ECF No. 4.) In
particular, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing without prejudice and without leave to
amend Claims 1 and 2 because Hood appears to be challenging the constitutionality of
his state court criminal conviction but he has not alleged that his conviction has been
While the R&R contains an error in reference to Plaintiff’s name in the first
sentence, the R&R correctly references Plaintiff’s name elsewhere and recites the
allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
overturned. (Id. at 3-4.) Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing with prejudice Claim 3
involving excessive bail against Defendant Deputy District Attorney John J. Friel because
Friel would be entitled to absolute immunity for his bail recommendations before the
presiding judicial officer. (Id. at 4-6.) 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 Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed. Claims 1 and 2 are dismissed
without prejudice and without leave to amend. Claim 3 is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this
DATED THIS 15th Day of November 2023.
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?