Lathus v. Crosby

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Joseph Lathus,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ferrin Crosby,
Defendant.
NO. CV-25-08148-PCT-CDB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 7). On
September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
with this Court. (Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. 1) without leave to amend, deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2) as moot, and further warn Plaintiff that he may be deemed as a vexatious
litigant. (Doc. 13). On September 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 16) to the R&R.
After considering the R&R and the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the
Court adopts the R&R. (Doc. 13).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the
Case 3:25-cv-08148-SMM-CDB Document 17 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review
at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of
course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R &
R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual
findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155,
1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).
DISCUSSION1
Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his Complaint arguing that (1) the Defendant and
the factual basis of this Complaint are distinct from those involved in prior litigation and
(2) he is not a vexatious litigant. (Doc. 16).
Plaintiff contends that his Complaint alleges a new action under 42 U.S.C. §1983
because the Defendant named is different from those in previous litigation. (Id. at 2-3).
Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s affidavit is directly correlated to his malicious
prosecution claim in a prior suit. (Id. at 3-4). To support his objections, Plaintiff has
attached 15 exhibits including various screenshots of emails, maps, and pictures. (See Id.
at 8-29). “[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence
presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.”
Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted). Plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that any of the exhibits presented support a cognizable claim under § 1983.
Additionally, the exhibits include references to individuals who are not relevant and have
no bearing on this Complaint. (Id. at 26). Therefore, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s
evidence.
1The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13).
Case 3:25-cv-08148-SMM-CDB Document 17 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court issue a warning to Plaintiff
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).
Plaintiff contends he is not a vexatious litigant because the harm caused by his
misdemeanor has impacted his livelihood and reflect systemic retaliation. (See Doc. 16 at
6).
Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and the
objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
adequately addressed all of Plaintiff’s arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates
and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice
and without leave to amend. (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this
action.
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
defendants and arising from the same events giving rise to the previously filed lawsuits
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.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-08148-SMM-CDB Document 17 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3