United States District Court, D. Nevada
JACOB R. PRATT, Plaintiff,
CHAIRPERSON FOR NEVADA PAROLE BOARD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a civil rights case brought by an individual who is a Nevada
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”)
prisoner-Plaintiff Jacob R. Pratt-although he is currently
incarcerated in New Mexico. (ECF No. 6 at 3 & n.1.)
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 6)
(“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5)
and pro se complaint (“Complaint”) (ECF
No. 1-1). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R on
March 15, 2019 (“Objection”). (ECF No. 7.) The
Court accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
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, 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); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting
the view that district courts are not required to review
“any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a
magistrate judge's recommendation, then the court may
accept the recommendation without review. Johnstone,
263 F.Supp. at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate
judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).
light of Plaintiff's Objection, this Court now engages in
a de novo review to determine whether to adopt
Magistrate Judge Cobb's R&R.
Cobb recommended dismissing Plaintiff's various
claims-alleging due process and equal protection violations
as well as discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 6.) Among Judge Cobbs stated
basis for dismissal is that parole board members constituting
the defendants in this action are entitled to absolute
quasi-judicial immunity. (ECF No. 6 at 10-12.)
Court agrees that the parole board members are entitled to
absolute immunity. Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d
1295, 1302 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[P]arole board officials
are entitled to absolute immunity from suits by prisoners for
actions taken when processing parole applications.”);
see also Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 554 F.3d
747, 751 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will adopt
Judge Cobb's R&R and dismiss this case with prejudice
as amendment would be futile.
Plaintiff's objections attempt to challenge Judge
Cobb's absolute immunity analysis. (ECF No. 7 at 2.)
First, Plaintiff argues that absolute immunity does not bar
his claim because he seeks declaratory relief. (Id.)
Second, he contends Defendants are not immunized for the
types of claims he alleges based on parole board policies.
Plaintiff cites no authority to support these objections and
the Court otherwise finds them unpersuasive.
Cobb further recommends that the Court grants Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis because
Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee in this matter.
This Court agrees with permitting Plaintiff to proceed in
therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No.
6) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.
further ordered that Plaintiffs application to proceed in
form pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted. Plaintiff is not
required to pay an initial partial filing fee; however,
whenever his prison account exceeds $10, he is required to
make monthly payments in the amount of 20 percent of the
preceding month's income credited to his account until
the full $350 filing fee is paid. This is required even where
an action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful. The
Clerk should be directed to send a copy of this order to the
attention of the Person in Charge of Inmate Accounts for the
Penitentiary of New Mexico-North, P.O. Box 1059,
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87054-1059. A copy should also
be sent to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services
for the Nevada Department of Corrections, P.O. Box
7011, Carson City, Nevada 89702, in the event Plaintiff is
transferred back into the custody of NDOC.
further ordered that Plaintiffs Objection (ECF No. 7) is
further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the Complaint
(ECF No. 1-1).
further ordered that this case is dismissed with prejudice
because Defendants are immunized from suit and ...