Filed: Oct. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE CORMAC J. CARNEY , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, including the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated September 30, 2019 [Dkt. No. 179] and Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R ("Objections") [Dkt. No. 181] and related documents. Nothing in the Objections refutes the Magistrate Judge's finding that all claim
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE CORMAC J. CARNEY , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, including the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated September 30, 2019 [Dkt. No. 179] and Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R ("Objections") [Dkt. No. 181] and related documents. Nothing in the Objections refutes the Magistrate Judge's finding that all claims..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE
CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, including the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated September 30, 2019 [Dkt. No. 179] and Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R ("Objections") [Dkt. No. 181] and related documents.
Nothing in the Objections refutes the Magistrate Judge's finding that all claims in the current case are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, basic pleading principles, litigation privilege, and frivolousness. See [Dkt. No. 179, p. 3]. First, Plaintiff requests de novo review of the Complaint pursuant to "Rule 59." [Dkt. No. 181, p. 9]. However, after a Report and Recommendation has been issued by the assigned magistrate judge, the appropriate route for Plaintiff to challenge the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation is by filing objections, as he as done. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff also restates allegations from the Complaint and asserts new allegations related to the purported conspiracy described in his Complaint. [Dkt. No. 181, pp. 9-14]. Second, Plaintiff raises objections to specific portions of the R&R, but these objections do nothing more than state a disagreement with the result. Nothing in Plaintiff's objections raises any issue that was not clearly addressed in the R&R. [Dkt. No. 181, pp. 14-20].
Further, Plaintiff has not presented any arguments as to why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff merely argues that the dismissal of his prior claims in Basile v. Southwest Airlines, Case No. 2:15-cv-01883-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.), was improper. However, Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's dismissal. Basile v. Southwest Airlines, 765 F. App'x 145 (9th Cir. 2019).
As such, after thorough analysis and consideration of the Complaint, the Motions to Dismiss, and the Report and Recommendation, and having performed a de novo review of those portions to which objections were made, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, [Dkt. No. 179], is accepted;
2. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 28, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 57, 61, 85, 101, 105, 107, 116, 122, 131, 136] are granted;
3. The case is dismissed with prejudice;
4. A separate order is to be issued deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant; and
5. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
