Opinion
2:22-cv-01463-RFB-DJA
01-23-2023
JESSE EARHART, Plaintiffs, v. STEVE WOLFSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
RICHARDF. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] of the Honorable Daniel J. Albregts, United States Magistrate Judge, entered November 9, 2022.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by November 23, 2022. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.