Mallory v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 JASON MALLORY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00497-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. 7 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jason Mallory filed a civil rights suit against the county of 12 Sacramento for false arrest and imprisonment relating to events that occurred at 13 his residence in Sacramento. Magistrate Judge Baldwin issued a Report and 14 Recommendation (ECF No. 3) recommending that Mallory’s application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted, that the complaint (ECF No. 1- 16 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and that this action be closed. Mallory filed an 17 objection (ECF No. 4), repeating his claims and stating that he has had problems 18 filing lawsuits in California. For the reasons identified below, the Court overrules 19 Mallory’s objections and adopts Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full. 20 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 21 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 22 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's 23 report and recommendation, the court is required to “make a de 24 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 25 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 26 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 27 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 28 1 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 2 In the R&R, Judge Baldwin recommends that Mallory’s application to 3 proceed IFP be granted because he is unable to pay the filing fee. Mallory does 4 not object to that portion of the R&R. Therefore, the Court grants Mallory’s 5 application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 1). 6 II. Screening 7 Upon screening the complaint, Judge Baldwin found that the Court lacks 8 personal jurisdiction and venue is improper because Mallory has not alleged that 9 any defendant resides in the District of Nevada, that a substantial part of the 10 events giving rise to the action transpired in the District of Nevada, or that Mallory 11 has any connection to the District. (ECF No. 3.) 12 In his objection, Mallory acknowledges that his claims do not have any 13 connection to Nevada but asks that the District of Nevada hear the case because 14 he has had problems communicating with law enforcement and bringing claims 15 in California courts. (ECF No. 4). Mallory states that if the District of Nevada is 16 unable to hear this case, he seeks a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to bring this 17 case directly to the Supreme Court. (Id.) Mallory has not alleged any facts which 18 suggest that his claims have a connection to the District of Nevada. 19 Therefore, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of 20 venue and personal jurisdiction in accordance with the R&R’s recommendation. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 III. Conclusion 2 The Court therefore orders that Mallory’s objection to Judge Baldwin’s R&R 3 || (ECF No. 4) is OVERRULED. 4 The Court further orders that Judge Baldwin’s R&R (ECF No. 3) is 5 || ADOPTED. In accordance with the R&R, the Court GRANTS Mallory’s application 6 || to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), directs the Clerk to file the complaint 7 || (ECF No. 1-1), and DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice. 8 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 9 || the case. 10 11 DATED THIS 224 day of October 2024. 12 13 Ares jloseed Wn 14 □ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28