Reddic v. Sartini Plaza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

GWENDOLYN R. REDDIC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01384-RFB-EJY Plaintiff,

ORDER v.

SARTINI PLAZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] of the Honorable Elayna J. Youchah, United States Magistrate Judge, entered October 23, 2020. 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by November 6, 2020. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. . . .

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED with prejudice as amendment would be futile.

DATED: January 6, 2021. Qe

RD F. BODY WARE, II United Statés‘District Judge

_2-