Mulford v. Washoe County, State of Nevada ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 DENNIS LEE MULFORD, Case No. 3:23-cv-00104-ART-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WASHOE COUNTY, STATE OF 9 NEVADA, 10 Defendant. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Dennis Lee Mulford brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 12 1983 for alleged constitutional violations related to his detention at Washoe 13 County Detention Center. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 14 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin 15 (ECF No. 4), recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff 16 had until May 26, 2023 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has 17 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, 18 and will dismiss the case without prejudice. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 20 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 21 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 23 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 25 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 26 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 27 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 28 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 4 and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 5 recommends dismissing the action without prejudice because of Plaintiff’s failure 6 to prosecute the case and failure to timely comply with an order to submit a 7 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). (ECF No. 8 4 at 2.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the 9 record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 10 The Court notes that after Judge Baldwin issued the R&R, Plaintiff filed a 11 new IFP Application. (ECF No. 5.) This new application was filed after the 12 deadline set forth in Judge Baldwin’s Order denying the initial application. (ECF 13 No. 3.) The new application was filed before the deadline for an objection to the 14 R&R. In the new application, Plaintiff provided some evidence showing that he 15 did not receive notice of the Order requiring a new IFP Application until the day 16 after the new application was due. Regardless, the new IFP Application is not 17 fully complete. The Court will therefore still adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R and 18 instructs Plaintiff that he may still refile his case, and that if he chooses to do 19 so, he should ensure that any IFP Application filed with the new case includes 20 all necessary documents and signatures. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Baldwin’s Report and 2 || Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be dismissed without 4 || prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs most recent IFP Application 6 || (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot. 7 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 8 9 DATED THIS 34 day of November 2023. 10 "1 Ar. □□□ Td 12 ANNE R. TRAUM 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28