Opinion
2:23-cv-00251-GMN-BNW
07-26-2023
BRANDON G. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDY RECOVERY INC. Defendant.
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Screening Order and Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler, recommending dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Brandon Adams's (“Plaintiff's”) 10 U.S.C. § 921 claim. Additionally, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Weksler's Screening Order, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Magistrate Judge Weksler noted that “[i]f Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so by May 28, 2023, or this Court will recommend that his case be dismissed.” (Screening Order and R&R 5:16-18, ECF No. 24).
Also pending before the Court is the Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 27), of Magistrate Judge Weksler. After the time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint passed, Magistrate Judge Weksler issued the second Report & Recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice and closed.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 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); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See First Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 24) (setting a May 12, 2023, deadline for objections); (see also Second Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 27) (setting a June 26, 2023, deadline for objections).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Screening Order and Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's claim under 10 U.S.C. § 921 is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 27), is ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.