United States District Court, D. Nevada
April 3, 2014
ROBIN M. LEE, Plaintiff(s),
STEVE A. WYNN, et al., Defendant(s),
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe. (Doc. # 2). Plaintiff Robin M. Lee filed an objection to the recommendation. (Doc. # 3).
Plaintiff filed the instant action against Steven Wynn, Elaine Wynn, Wynn Hotel & Casino, and unnamed security guards. (Doc. # 1) Plaintiff alleges that security guards employed at the Wynn Hotel confiscated his briefcase which contained default judgments for more that $10 billion. Id. Plaintiff also apologizes "for being a nuisance to Wynn since 1996 due to being brainwashed." Id. The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted, and that the court dismiss the action based on frivolousness and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. # 3).
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).
Plaintiff's objection states, in its entirety,
Plaintiff comes now above named with his motion of objection to the dismissal for reasons of only Wynn will extend a million credit line and the Las Vegas Sands.
Plaintiff states not a thing in Las Vegas happens without defendant & his wife's knowledge. Wynn is closest with his security who took his property (that is full of fraudulent [illegible] such as plaintiff did not file a thing in 2013 Re Telecheck 2:12-cv-00705. Telecheck is demanding sanctions [illegible] plaintiff; at time) for a specific reason.
(Doc. # 3).
The court is unable to determine any particular portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff objects to. Furthermore, it is clear that this complaint is premised upon a delusional factual scenario, and therefore should be dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Therefore, upon reviewing the recommendation, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge's findings in full.
IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe (doc. # 2) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. # 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.