1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 AVERY ALLEN CHURCH, JR., Case No. 2:18-CV-53 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is plaintiff Avery Allen Church Jr.’s (“plaintiff”) motion for 14 leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 39). Defendants Loaan, Lozano, and 15 Padillo (collectively “defendants”) filed a response (ECF No. 43), to which plaintiff replied 16 (ECF No. 44). 17 Also before the court is Magistrate Judge Albregts’s report and recommendation 18 (“R&R”) recommending that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be 19 denied. (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff did not file an objection, and the time to do so has passed. 20 Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to prohibit defendant from seizing and 21 searching legal documents. (ECF No. 28). Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 29), to which 22 plaintiff replied (ECF No. 31). 23 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 25 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 26 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 27

(b)(1). 28 1 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at 2 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 3 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 4 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 5 States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 6 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 7 objections were made). 8 Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the 9 recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and attendant 10 circumstances, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in 11 full. 12 The court now turns to plaintiff’s motion to prohibit defendant from seizing and 13 searching legal documents. Defendants aver as follows: 14 Although Plaintiff’s request was file stamped on July 19, 2019, he prepared it on July 14, 2019. ECF No. 28 at 1. Additionally, the 15 envelope is dated July 15, 2019. ECF No. 28 at 3. Plaintiff received and signed for his property on July 15, 2019, the day after 16 writing a letter claiming he has not yet received his property. The letter however was not filed until July 19, 2019, four days after 17 having received the property. This appears to just be odd timing. In any event, Plaintiff has already received the property he is 18 claiming NDOC is withholding from him, and therefore Plaintiff’s request is moot and should be denied. 19 20 (ECF No. 29 at 4). Because plaintiff’s belongings were returned to him, the court denies his 21 motion as moot. 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge 24 Albregts’s R&R (ECF No. 46) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 26 complaint (ECF No. 39) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to prohibit defendant from seizing and searching legal documents (ECF No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. 3 DATED November 13, 2019. 4 CP tia C. Atala. ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge -3-