Wait v. Holm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA DUKE WAIT, )

) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-02038-GMN-VCF vs. )

) ORDER

D. HOLM SENIOR, D. BROWN, JOHN DOE ) OFFICER, et al., )

) Defendants. )

) Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 34), which recommends that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with Local Rule IA 3-1 and with Court Order, (ECF No. 32).

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, March 26, 2021, has passed. (See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 34), is ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 28), is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

DATED this _2_9__ day of March, 2021.

___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court