Williams v. United States ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, AKA MALIK Case No. 3:23-cv-00400-ART-CSD 5 BEY SURRELL III, ORDER ADOPTING R&R 6 Plaintiff, v. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 3) 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Thomas L. Williams sues several police departments across 11 the United States for several state-law tort claims based on the killing of black 12 men by police departments. Magistrate Judge Denney issued a Report and 13 Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims without 14 prejudice for being filed in the wrong venue (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff objected to the 15 R&R. (ECF No. 5.) The Court adopts the R&R in whole, dismisses Plaintiff’s claims 16 without prejudice, and instructs the Clerk to close the case. 17 A District Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 18 findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge.” 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report 20 and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de 21 novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 22 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In reviewing a prisoner civil rights claim, 23 the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are 24 frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se prisoner civil rights pleadings must be 27 liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 28 1990). 1 The R&R recommended dismissing Plaintiff's complaint to allow him to file 2 || it in one of the courts in which the Defendant police departments operate. The 3 || R&R also found that despite naming the United States as a Defendant, Plaintiff 4 || had only alleged claims against police departments outside of Nevada. (ECF No. 5 || 3.) Liberally construing Plaintiffs objection, Plaintiff states that the United States, 6 || by subjecting Plaintiffs relatives to slavery, kidnapping, and murder, is a proper 7 || party. Plaintiff also states that he is an honorably discharged veteran and that he 8 || suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 9 Plaintiffs objection does not explain why this district is the correct venue 10 || for this suit. The acts or omissions alleged by Plaintiff took place in states other 11 || than Nevada. (See ECF No. 1-1.) Accordingly, there are no alleged facts that tie 12 || this suit to this district. 13 Plaintiff did not otherwise object to Judge Denney’s analysis of improper 14 || venue. The Court is not required to “review... any issue that is not the subject 15 || of an objection” to an R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 16 The Court, accordingly, adopts the R&R in whole; denies □□□□□□□□□□□ 17 || objection; dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice; and denies Plaintiffs 18 || application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 19 20 DATED THIS 29th day of October 2024. 21 22 Ans paid iden 23 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28