Opinion
3:23-cv-00002-MMD-CLB
02-10-2023
KEON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN THORHILL, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Keon Williams brings this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 (“R&R”)), recommending that the Court deny Williams' application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 (“IFP Application”)) and dismiss Williams' Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) without prejudice and without leave to amend. Williams timely filed an objection (ECF No. 4 (“Objection”)) to the R&R. As further explained below, the Court overrules Williams' Objection, and adopts the R&R in full.
Defendants are Shawn Thornhill, Bryce Shields, Karen Stephen, and the State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1.)
This 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 timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court's review is thus de novo because Williams filed his Objection. (ECF No. 4.)
Judge Baldwin found that Williams appears to ask the Court to intervene in his ongoing state criminal proceedings, and the Court therefore should abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No. 3 at 3-4.) Williams' Objection only reaffirms that Judge Baldwin's finding is correct. That is, Williams insists that “the cases of the plaintiff[] must be removed” and that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights in bringing “fictitious” charges against him. (ECF No. 4 at 5-6.) Judge Baldwin thus correctly found the Younger abstention doctrine applies here. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R.
Judge Baldwin goes on to note that Williams cannot raise Section 1983 claims against the State of Nevada and that certain defendants enjoy absolute immunity from suit. (ECF No. 3 at 5.) Because the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin's recommendation '
It is therefore ordered that Williams' objection (ECF No. 4) to Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is overruled.
It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Williams' IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-1.)
It is further ordered that the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.