From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. BulkSupplements.com

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 20, 2022
2:22-cv-00600-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00600-APG-DJA

10-20-2022

CHARMANE SMITH, Plaintiff v. BULKSUPPLEMENTS.COM and KEVIN BARONOWSKY, Defendants


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

[ECF NO. 9]

ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On September 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I dismiss this case because plaintiff Charmane Smith did not file an amended complaint by the given deadline. ECF No. 9. Smith did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).

I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case.


Summaries of

Smith v. BulkSupplements.com

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Oct 20, 2022
2:22-cv-00600-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 2022)
Case details for

Smith v. BulkSupplements.com

Case Details

Full title:CHARMANE SMITH, Plaintiff v. BULKSUPPLEMENTS.COM and KEVIN BARONOWSKY…

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Oct 20, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-00600-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 2022)