Starks v. State of Nevada Attorney General
Filing
44
ORDER Adopting in its entirety 29 Report and Recommendation. Granting 35 Motion to Dismiss. The case of Starks v. Cortez-Masto et al. is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/1/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
DR. RENA’ E. STARKS,
7
8
2:11-CV-933 JCM (LRL)
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
STATE OF NEVADA ATTORNEY
GENERAL, et al.,
11
12
Defendants.
13
14
ORDER
15
Presently before the court is plaintiff Rena Starks’ objection (doc. #19) to Magistrate Judge
16
Leavitt’s report and recommendation (doc. #29), recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be
17
dismissed with prejudice as irrational and frivolous.
18
Also before the court is defendants Bank of NY/BOA/Federal Reserve, Bauer, Bergstrom,
19
Miles, and Krista Nielson’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. #35). The plaintiff has responded twice (docs.
20
#37, 38), and the defendants have replied (doc. #42).
21
I.
Report and Recommendation
22
Under Local Rule IB 1-4 and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), a magistrate judge shall file findings and
23
recommendations for disposition by the district judge. The district judge “shall make a de novo
24
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
25
which objection is made . . . [and] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
26
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Here, Magistrate Judge Leavitt found the complaint to be irrational and frivolous. Judge
1
Leavitt has quoted from the complaint extensively to bolster this opinion, and this court agrees.
2
However, in plaintiff’s one-page objection to the recommendation, she has attached three different
3
versions of the complaint. (See docs. #33-3, 33-4, 33-5). In response to this request, the defendants
4
have filed a motion to dismiss (doc. #35). Although the plaintiff has not formally requested leave
5
to amend the complaint, the court, in an abundance of caution, nonetheless reviews the motion to
6
dismiss on the merits.
7
II.
Motion to Dismiss
8
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
9
as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
10
1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Where a
11
complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the
12
line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S.
13
at 557). However, where there are well pled factual allegations, the court should assume their
14
veracity and determine if they give rise to relief. Id. at 1950.
15
The court agrees with the defendants in concluding that the amended complaints filed in
16
response to the report and recommendation should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
17
which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has failed provide any analysis as to why the defendants are
18
even named as parties and also fails to provide any basis for reversing the writ of restitution granted
19
by the Las Vegas Justice Court. The complaint is indeed “borderline unintelligible” and vague to the
20
point that it fails to put the defendants on notice of the claims against them.
21
Accordingly,
22
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation (doc.
23
24
25
26
27
#29) is adopted in its entirety;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the purported amended
complaints (doc. #35) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case of Starks v. Cortez-Masto et al.
(2:11-cv-00933-JCM -LRL) be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice;
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
2
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are hereby DENIED as
moot.
DATED August 1, 2011.
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
