Opinion
Case No.: 2:13-cv-1421-GMN-GWF
10-06-2014
Ervin Middleton, Plaintiff, v. Plus Four, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge George W. Foley, (ECF No. 4), which states that this action should be dismissed with prejudice based on pro se Plaintiff Ervin Middleton's failure to file an Amended Complaint prior to the deadline set by the Court.
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. Id. 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. 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). 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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2014.
/s/_________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court