Prado v. Mutual Liberty Insurance

District Court, D. Nevada

Prado v. Mutual Liberty Insurance

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 FREDERIC CHARLES PRADO, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-00831-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER MUTUAL LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE, et ) 7 al., ) ) 8 Defendants. ) ) 9 ) 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Order and Report and Recommendation (“Order and 12 R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, (ECF No. 8), granting Plaintiff 13 Frederic Charles Pardo’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma 14 pauperis, (ECF No. 1), and recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF Nos. 15 1-1, 9), without prejudice and provide him a deadline to file an amended complaint. Judge 16 Weksler issued her R&R on September 11, 2019, and Plaintiff had until September 25, 2019 to 17 file an objection. (Order and R&R, ECF No. 8) 18 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 19 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B); 20 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 21 determination of those portions to which objections are made.

Id.

The Court may accept, reject, 22 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 23

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 24 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 25 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 1 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 2 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114

, 3 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, September 25, 2019, has 5 passed. (Order and R&R). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 8), is 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF Nos. 1-1, 9), is 10 DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until October 26, 2019 to file an 12 amended complaint. 13 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 14 15 DATED this __2_6__ day of September, 2019. 16 17 18 19 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 20 United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25

Reference

Status
Unknown