Opinion
Case No. 3:13-cv-00491-MMD-WGC
11-20-2013
WILLIAM NEIDINGER, Plaintiff, v. DAVID CLIFTON, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William Cobb's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (dkt. no. 3), regarding Plaintiff William Neidinger's Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. no. 1.) Plaintiff filed an objection on October 30, 2013. (Dkt. no. 4.)
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection.").
The Complaint asks for emergency preliminary and injunctive relief to halt enforcement of a state court judgment that prohibits Plaintiff from advertising his handyman services. (See dkt. no. 1-1 at 5.) Plaintiff attaches the relevant criminal misdemeanor judgment, which says that Plaintiff was tried and found guilty of engaging in a contracting business or submitting a bid without a valid contractor's license in violation of NRS 624.700. (See id., Attachment #1.) The R&R found that, though Plaintiff frames the Complaint as a constitutional challenge, his claims are "inextricably intertwined" with a state court decision and thus the Court is barred from exercising jurisdiction over this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Dkt. no. 3 at 4.) After consideration of the record and Plaintiff's objection, the Court agrees with the R&R and finds that this action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[] Rooker-Feldman bars federal adjudication of any suit in which a plaintiff alleges an injury based on a state court judgment and seeks relief from that judgment, not only direct appeals from a state court's decision.") (citations omitted).
It is hereby ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 3), is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
The clerk is ordered to file the Complaint and close the case.
_____________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE