Opinion
2:20-cv-02021-GMN-BNW
02-06-2023
ORDER
THE HONORABLE GLORIA M. NAVARRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 7), of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Wekslker, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Nathaniel Williams's (“Plaintiff's”) Complaint, (ECF No. 6).
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. 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 R&R 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 Min. Order, ECF No. 7) (setting a December 21, 2022, deadline for objections). In addition, Plaintiff has had previous opportunities to avoid dismissal but did not take them. (See Order 5:17-19, ECF No. 5) (providing Plaintiff until October 20, 2022, to file an amended complaint); (Order 1:1718, ECF No. 9) (granting Plaintiff until January 31, 2023, to update his address).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 7), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Complaint, (ECF No. 6), is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case.