Curtis v. Progressive Ins ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 THOMAS CURTIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00700-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 PROGRESSIVE INS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Curtis brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 5), recommending the Court grant 14 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), but dismiss his 15 Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff had until February 11, 2021 to file an 16 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as 17 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss this case. 18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 21 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 22 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 24 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 25 1There is a notation on the docket indicating that the R&R was returned to the Clerk 26 of Court because Plaintiff no longer resides at the address he provided. (ECF No. 6.) However, LR IA 3-1 requires a pro se litigant like Plaintiff to immediately file with the Court 27 a written change of address notification whenever his address changes, and warns him 1 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 2 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 3 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 5 satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin first recommends 6 granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application because her review of it indicates he cannot pay the 7 filing fee. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Judge Baldwin then recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s 8 Complaint because it does not satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) pleading standard. (Id. 9 at 3-4.) Judge Baldwin alternatively recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint 10 because he attempts to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private parties, and 11 thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court agrees 12 with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will 13 adopt the R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 15 No. 5) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 17 No. 1) is granted. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, in its 20 entirety, with prejudice. 21 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 22 case. 23 DATED THIS 18th Day of February 2021. 24 25 26 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27