Miles v. Clark County
2:21-cv-00290
D. Nev.Sep 5, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Christian Stephon Miles filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging civil-rights claims against Clark County, LVMPD, and several officers.
- Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of Claims 1–11, 13, and 28–32 as time‑barred and allowing the remaining claims to proceed.
- The deadline to object to the R&R was August 28, 2023; Miles filed no objections.
- The district judge reviewed the R&R and adopted it in full, applying the standard that magistrate findings are set aside only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
- The court concluded amendment would be futile for the dismissed claims because they are barred by the two‑year statute of limitations, and therefore denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint as to those claims with prejudice.
- The defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied as moot; Claims 12, 14–27, and 33–46 may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to adopt the magistrate judge’s R&R absent objections | Miles did not object to the R&R | Defendants relied on R&R findings on timeliness | Court adopted R&R in full because no objections and R&R not clearly erroneous |
| Whether certain claims are barred by the statute of limitations | Sought leave to file Second Amended Complaint to assert claims | Most claims are time‑barred under Nevada’s two‑year limitations period | Claims 1–11, 13, 28–32 dismissed with prejudice as time‑barred |
| Whether to grant leave to amend dismissed claims | Requested leave to file Second Amended Complaint | Amendment futile because of statute‑of‑limitations bar | Leave to amend denied with prejudice for the barred claims |
| Status of defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings | N/A (Miles opposed via amended-complaint process) | Defendants argued timeliness; incorporated arguments into opposition | Motion denied as moot because R&R and briefing addressed those issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003) (no review required of a magistrate judge’s R&R unless objections filed)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standard for district-court review of magistrate judge recommendations)
- United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (same)
- Garity v. APWU Nat'l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2016) (pro se litigant entitled to notice and opportunity to amend unless amendment futile)
- Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (amendment should be allowed unless absolutely clear it cannot cure defects)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous")
- Burdick v. Comm'r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1992) (application of "clearly erroneous" standard)