Hughes v. McDonough ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 YOLANDA HUGHES, Case No. 3:24-cv-00248-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DENIS McDONOUGH, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Yolanda Hughes brings a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 against Denis McDonough of the Department of Veteran Affairs. (ECF No. 2-1 13 (“Complaint”).) Hughes filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF 14 Nos. 2, 5 (“IFP Applications”)). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 15 (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin, recommending that the first 16 IFP Application be granted and the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF 17 No. 4.) To date, Hughes has not filed an objection to the R&R. The Court will adopt the 18 R&R in full and deny the second IFP application as moot. 19 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 20 satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 21 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 22 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 23 findings and recommendations.”). 24 I. IFP APPLICATIONS 25 Judge Baldwin found that the first IFP Application established that Hughes cannot 26 pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) See LR 1-1. The Court agrees. Hughes’ first IFP 27 Application (ECF No. 2) is therefore granted, and her second IFP Application (ECF No. 28 5) is denied as moot. 1 II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 2 Judge Baldwin then screened Hughes’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF 3 No. 4 at 2-5.) She found that Hughes’ allegations—conclusory statements that Defendant 4 engaged in harassment that forced her to quit her job in August 2023, blocked her social 5 security and unemployment benefits, and retaliated against her through stalking and 6 defamation—failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id.; ECF No. 2-1 at 7 4.) The Court agrees that Hughes’ pleading is incomplete and adopts the R&R in full. The 8 Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 9 If Hughes chooses to file an amended complaint, that pleading must contain “a 10 short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Hughes] is entitled to relief, in order 11 to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 12 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cleaned up). Each claim must 13 include factual allegations describing how Defendant harassed, retaliated, and/or 14 discriminated against her. Hughes may not amend her complaint to add unrelated claims 15 against other defendants. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s R&R (ECF No. 4) is accepted and 18 adopted in full as to Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 2) and the Complaint (ECF No. 19 2-1). 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s first IFP Application (ECF No. 2) is granted and 21 thus her second IFP Application (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint but not to issue summons at 23 this time. 24 It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 2-1) is dismissed with leave to 25 amend. 26 Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file a first amended complaint 27 that conforms to these recommendations. Failure to file an amended complaint within that 28 period will lead to the dismissal of this action. 1 DATED THIS 19" Day of July 2024. 2 . 3 4 MIRANDA M. DU 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28