Joseph Lathus v. Ferrin Crosby

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 Joseph Lathus, NO. CV-25-08148-PCT-CDB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Ferrin Crosby, 13 Defendant. — 14 — 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 7). On 16 September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 with this Court. (Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint (Doc. 1) without leave to amend, deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma 19 Pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot, and further warn Plaintiff that he may be deemed as a vexatious 20 litigant. (Doc. 13). On September 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 16) to the R&R. 21 After considering the R&R and the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the 22 Court adopts the R&R. (Doc. 13). 23 STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall 25 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 26 made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 27 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter 28 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the 1 Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review 2 at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 , 3 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of 4 course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & 5 R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 6 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 7 review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 8 correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual 9 findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 , 10 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)). 11 DISCUSSION1 12 Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his Complaint arguing that (1) the Defendant and 13 the factual basis of this Complaint are distinct from those involved in prior litigation and 14 (2) he is not a vexatious litigant. (Doc. 16). 15 Plaintiff contends that his Complaint alleges a new action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 16 because the Defendant named is different from those in previous litigation. (Id. at 2-3). 17 Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s affidavit is directly correlated to his malicious 18 prosecution claim in a prior suit. (Id. at 3-4). To support his objections, Plaintiff has 19 attached 15 exhibits including various screenshots of emails, maps, and pictures. (See Id. 20 at 8-29). “[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence 21 presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.” 22 Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted). Plaintiff failed to 23 demonstrate that any of the exhibits presented support a cognizable claim under § 1983. 24 Additionally, the exhibits include references to individuals who are not relevant and have 25 no bearing on this Complaint. (Id. at 26). Therefore, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s 26 evidence. — 27 — 1The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s 28 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13). 1 The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court issue a warning to Plaintiff 2 || because the factual allegations and claims in Plaintiff's Complaint are duplicative of three prior filings, all which were dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 . (Doc. 13 at 22). 4|| Plaintiff contends he is not a vexatious litigant because the harm caused by his 5 || misdemeanor has impacted his livelihood and reflect systemic retaliation. (See Doc. 16 at 6). 7 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and the 8 || objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge 9|| adequately addressed all of Plaintiff's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates || and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 13 |} (Doc. 13). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice || and without leave to amend. (Doc. 1). 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Application for Leave to 17 || Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 2). 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED warning Plaintiff that if he files any further || complaints, accompanied by motions to proceed in forma pauperis, with regard to the same 22 || defendants and arising from the same events giving rise to the previously filed lawsuits 23 || discussed herein, he may be deemed a vexatious litigant and enjoined from filing any such □□ lawsuit pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 . 25 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. 27 Stephen M. McNamee 28 Senior United States District Judge -3-