United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and
recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 6).
Plaintiff Grace Albanese filed an objection to the R&R on
July 5, 2017. (ECF No. 7). The time to file a response has
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.
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
filings are pro se, and thus this court construes
them liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Although
plaintiff's filing does not adequately address or brief
the objectionable issues, (See ECF No. 7), and
therefore the court need not engage in a de novo
review of the R&R, see Martinez v. Ylst, 951
F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991), the court will review the
screening order de novo to ensure finality in the
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the
court then screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Federal courts may dismiss an action if it (1) is
legally “frivolous or malicious, ” (2) fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section
1915 conserves judicial resources by empowering courts to
dismiss actions that “fall somewhere between the
frivolous and the farcical and so foster disrespect for our
laws.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574,
601 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
the litigant files pro se, courts use “less
stringent standards” when considering the complaint.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
“Such litigants often lack the resources and freedom
necessary to comply with the technical rules of modern
litigation.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.,
704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Moore v.
Florida, 703 F.2d 516, 520 (11th Cir. 1983)). However,
pro se litigants “should not be treated more
favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”
Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.
court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the
plaintiff should be given leave to amend with directions to
cure the complaint's deficiencies, unless it is clear
from the face of the complaint that amendment would be
futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Courts are not
required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and
may dismiss them as frivolous or malicious under §
1915(e). See Id. at 1105 n.2 (noting that courts may
dismiss under § 1915 a complaint that merely repeats
pending or previously litigated claims).
case is one of 45 federal cases plaintiff has filed against
the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Department
of Homeland Security within the last year and a half. The
claims raised in plaintiffs complaint are directly related to
those raised in the other actions. See, e.g., Grace
Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
case no. 2:16-cv-00532-RFB-GWF; Grace Albanese v.
Homeland Security, case no. 2:16-cv-00531-RFB-VCF;
Grace Albanese v. Department of Homeland Security,
case no. 2:17-cv-01287-JCM-PAL; Grace Albanese v. Federal
Bureau of Investigations, 2:17-cv-01286-JAD-PAL.
Judge Koppe granted plaintiff leave to amend after holding
that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim. (ECF No.
3). Plaintiffs amended complaint “suffers from the same
deficiencies outlined previously.” (ECF No. 6 at 2).
This action is duplicitous and frivolous. Dismissal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is appropriate.
reasons stated in Judge Koppe's R&R and stated above,
the court dismisses the case with prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate
Judge Koppe's report and recommendation (ECF No. 6) be,