Jackson v. Espinoza
Jackson v. Espinoza
Trial Court Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 RANDELL JACKSON, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00682-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 JORGE ESPINOZA, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 10 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, (ECF No. 6), which recommends that Plaintiff Randell 11 Jackson’s (“Plaintiff’s”) case be dismissed without prejudice. 12 Plaintiff has failed to update his address with the Court pursuant to Local Rule IA 3-1, 13 which provides that failure to comply may result in “. . . the dismissal of the action, entry of 14 default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court.” D. Nev. Local R. IA 15 3-1. 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made.
Id.The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 1 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 2 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, December 16, 2019, has 4 passed. (Min. Order, ECF No. 6). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 6), is 7 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed 10 in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 11 The Clerk of Court shall close this case and enter judgment accordingly. 12 DATED this __3___ day of January, 2020. 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Reference
- Status
- Unknown