Johnson v. Gold Coast Casino ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Lamont Johnson, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01068-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Closing Case 6 v. [ECF No. 6] 7 Gold Coast Casino, 8 Defendant 9 10 Plaintiff Lamont Johnson, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against 11 defendant Gold Coast Casino under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. After reviewing the 12 complaint, Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe issued an order to show cause why this case should 13 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Order, ECF No. 3. Johnson responded to 14 the show-cause order by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and an amended 15 complaint. ECF No. 5. I now consider Judge Koppe’s July 8, 2024 report and recommendation 16 (R&R) that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. R&R, ECF No. 6. 17 The deadline for Johnson to object to the R&R was July 22, 2024. Id. at 3; see also Local 18 Rule IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file objections within 19 fourteen days). As of the date of this order, Johnson has neither objected to the R&R nor 20 requested more time to do so. If there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, 21 then the court may accept the recommendation without review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 22 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 23 recommendation unless objections are filed.”); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); 24 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 26 1 Nonetheless, I conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R@R. In the 2||amended complaint, Johnson alleges that Gold Coast was acting under color of state law when it violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 5-1 at 2-3. Johnson asserts 4|| that Gold Coast was acting under color of state law by “impersonating Law Enforcement 5}| officers” and because “[d]efendants are not employed as Law Enforcement Agents [but] they acted as such[.]” Id. However, “private parties are not generally acting under color of state law.” 7|| Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, Johnson has failed to provide a 8|| sufficient nexus showing that Gold Coast conspired with the state or one of its officials to hold Gold Coast—a private party—responsible as a governmental actor. Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 437 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A private party may be considered to have acted under color of state law 1]|| when it engages in a conspiracy or acts in concert with state agents to deprive one’s constitutional rights.”). Because Johnson fails to show that Gold Coast acted under color of state law and thus fails to state a claim for relief under federal law on the face of the complaint, I agree 14] with Judge Koppe’s finding that Johnson fails to establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Given the failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed. Fed. R. 16]| Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 17] court must dismiss the action.”). Consequently, Johnson’s application to proceed IFP must be 18]| denied as moot. 19 Conclusion 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 6] is adopted; and this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In light of this dismissal, Johnson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 23} [ECF No. 5] is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is kind yifstmeted to close this case. 24 Dated: August 1, 2024 25 ( United States District Judge