1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JERED LEE SPOTTED BEAR and Case No. 3:18-cv-00374-MMD-CBC JOANN SPOTTED BEAR, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v.

9 SEAN SHEAHAN, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 17), 14 recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Jared and Joann Spottedbear’s first 15 amended complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 12) with prejudice and without leave to amend. 16 Plaintiffs had until August 28, 2019 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R 17 has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and 18 will dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC with prejudice and without leave to amend. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 24 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 25 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth 26 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 27 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 1 || employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 2 || objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D. 3 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 4 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 5 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 6 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

|| 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 8 || objection was filed). 9 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s recommendation dismiss the 10 || FAC with prejudice and without leave to amend, the Court will nevertheless conduct a de 11 || novo review. Judge Carry found that the FAC failed to state a claim because it contained 12 || vague, conclusory allegations without identifying a legal or factual basis for any particular 13 || legal claim. (See ECF No. 17 at 4-5.) Judge Carry also found that dismissal with prejudice 14 || and without leave to amend was appropriate due to futility. (/d. at 5.) Upon reviewing the 15 || FAC and the initial complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Carry. 16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17 || 17) is adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (ECF No. 12) is 19 || dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ pending motion (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 22 DATED THIS 5" day of September 2019.

24 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28