Provino v. Wray

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 RAPHAEL M. PROVINO, Case No. 3:23-cv-00211-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [8] FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY, 9 et al., 10 Defendants. [11] Pro se Plaintiff Raphael M. Provino is attempting to sue primarily Texas-based [12] officials and entities, along with some former federal officials, in what looks mostly like a [13] dispute about a real-estate transaction in Texas. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is the [14] Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. [15] Denney, recommending that the Court dismiss this case for improper venue. (ECF No. [16] 5.) Objections to the R&R were due August 23, 2023. (See id.) To date, Provino has not [17] filed an objection to the R&R. Because the Court agrees with Judge Denney’s analysis in [18] the R&R, and as further explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full and will dismiss [19] this case for improper venue. [20] Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and [21] is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 22 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and [23] recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the [24] findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). In the R&R, Judge Denney [25] recommends the Court grant the Motion because every factual allegation in the proposed [26] complaint appears to relate to events that took place in Texas, and none of the many [27] named Defendants are residents of this District. (ECF No. 5.) To the extent Provino filed [28] 1 || this case in this District because he now resides in Reno, “a plaintiff's residence is 2 || irrelevant in determining venue[.]’ Madison v. Dyal, 746 F. Supp. 2d 450, 452 (W.D.N.Y. 3 || 2010). Since Judge Denney issued the R&R, Provino sent Judge Denney a letter (ECF 4 || No. 6-1) and filed a motion “to charge and bill and order” (ECF No. 7), but neither of these 5 || documents contain any specific objections to the R&R or otherwise suggest that venue 6 || might be proper in this District. Judge Denney did not clearly err in the R&R. 7 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 8 || No. 5) is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that this case is dismissed, in its entirety and without prejudice, 10 || for improper venue. 11 It is further ordered that Provino’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 12 || No. 4) is denied as moot considering the dismissal. 13 It is further ordered that Provino’s motion to charge bill and order (ECF No. 7) is 14 || also denied as moot considering the dismissal. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 16 DATED THIS 30" Day of August 2023. [17] ALA 19 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE