Johnson v. Barrett

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 2:17-cv-02304-RFB-BNW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. BARRETT, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 84] of the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 31, 2020.

17 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by September 14, 2020. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

28 . . .

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 84] is | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3 IT IS FURTHER that Plaintiff’ s motion to amend his complaint is DENIED to the extent he seeks to add Gilmore as a Defendant.

5 IT IS FURTHER ODERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is DENIED tothe extent it seeks to add Carson City as a defendant.

7 IT IS FURTHER ODERED that Plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint is DENIED | to the extent it seeks to add claims against Howell, Gentry and Dzurenda.

9 my 10 DATED: October 28, 2020. a} ul WARE, II 2 United States District Judge _2-