Shteynberg v. Goldberg

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA RUDOLF SHTEYNBERG, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01824-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 4] VON GOLDBERG, 7 Defendant 8 On December 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I dismiss this case because plaintiff Rudolf Shteynberg has not complied with court orders. ECF No. 4. Shteynberg 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 15}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).

16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 4) is accepted and plaintiff Rudolf Shteynberg’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case.

19 DATED this 18th day of December, 2019. wncomon ———— 09 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE