Opinion
3:22-cv-00343-ART-CLB
07-19-2023
WADE ALAN KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELKO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pro se Plaintiff Wade Alan Knight (“Knight”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has submitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5), and a civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 6), recommending that: 1) Plaintiff's in forma pauperis applications (ECF No. 1, 4, 5), be denied as moot; 2) the Clerk file Knight's complaint, (ECF No. 1-1); and 3) Plaintiff's complaint, (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until September 29, 2022 to file an objection. Plaintiff filed an objection on September 26, 2022, but the objection did not contain any arguments on the merits. Instead, Plaintiff explained 1) his lack of access to a law library sufficient to research Younger Abstention; 2) his understanding that Judge Baldwin ordered the complaint to be dismissed because of his ongoing criminal proceeding; and 3) his request for a copy of his original complaint. (ECF No. 7). Because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin's analysis as to Plaintiff's Motions, the Court adopts the R&R, and will take the recommended actions.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation, 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); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Because there is no objection to the merits of Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends 1) Plaintiff's in forma pauperis applications (ECF No. 1, 4, 5), be denied as moot; 2) the Clerk file Knight's complaint, (ECF No. 1-1); and 3) Plaintiff's complaint, (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. (ECF N0.6). Judge Baldwin recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff has an ongoing criminal case, and all of the prerequisites of Younger abstention doctrine are met. (ECF No. 6 at 4). Because Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing the complaint, she also recommends the Court deny as moot Plaintiff's in forma pauperis applications. (ECF No. 6 at 2). The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that the in forma pauperis applications, (ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5), be denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk file Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the Clerk send Plaintiff a copy of his complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.