Opinion
Case No. 2:17-CV-2873 JCM (VCF)
02-02-2018
BILL LIETZKE, Plaintiff(s), v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff, who represents himself pro se, filed an objection. (ECF No. 4). Defendants have not filed a response, and the time for doing so has since passed.
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).
Plaintiff has filed eight cases against Alabama defendants in the District of Nevada. (ECF No. 3). All of them have been transferred to the District of Alabama or dismissed, as "it appears that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants and venue is improper here." Lietzke v City of Montgomery et al, 3:17-cv-00040-MMD-WGC (ECF No. 3 at 2). The R&R in this case notes that plaintiff has also filed similar complaints in Montana, Michigan, and New Mexico against Alabama defendants. (ECF No. 3). Despite repeated warnings against filing frivolous lawsuits, plaintiff continues to abuse the judicial process.
Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's R&R recommends that the court dismiss plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 3). The R&R further recommends that the court declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and require plaintiff to seek leave of the court before filing additional actions in the District of Nevada. Id.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 4). However, the body of the objection is two sentences consisting of nine vulgar phrases (15 of the 32 words in these sentences are profane). Id. The sentences do not attempt to address or brief objectionable issues. Id. Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation, the court finds that good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge's findings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is deemed a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and is ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED from filing any new complaint, petition, or other action in this court without first obtaining leave from the Chief Judge of this court. The clerk of court is authorized to reject, refuse to file, and discard any new complaint, petition or other new action in violation of this order.
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED February 2, 2018.
/s/ James C. Mahan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE