3:24-cv-00063
D. Nev.
May 19, 2025

MARK SMITH, JR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:24-cv-00063-MMD-CLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

May 19, 2025

ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Smith, Jr. (“Smith“) is proceeding on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA“) along with a state law negligence claim. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R“) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 15), recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff‘s state law negligence claim (ECF No. 12 (“Motion“)). To date, no objections to the R&R have been filed. Because there is no objection, and as further explained below, the Court will adopt the R&R and grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion.

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.” (emphasis in original)). Judge Baldwin recommends the Court grant Defendants’ Motion in part because Plaintiff does not oppose it and because the State of Nevada is barred from suit against Smith‘s negligence claim by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. (ECF No. 15 at 3-4.) However, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissal of the claim without prejudice (despite Defendants’ argument the claim should be dismissed with prejudice) because dismissals of state law claims for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) Having reviewed the R&R, Judge Baldwin did not clearly err.

It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin‘s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is granted in part and denied in part.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff‘s state law negligence claim is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED THIS 19th Day of May 2025.

MIRANDA M. DU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE