1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Victor M. Tagle, Sr., ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-00815-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER DHS/ICC INS., et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts, (ECF No. 24), which recommends that the case be 12 dismissed with prejudice. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made.

The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18

(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 19 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, Plaintiff Victor Tagle, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) filed his Objection, (ECF No. 29), to the 25 Report and Recommendation on September 24, 2019, which was well passed the deadline to do 1 so. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 24) (setting a September 9, 2019, deadline for objections). 2 However, even if Plaintiff had timely filed his Objection, it does not object to the reasoning 3 provided in the Report and Recommendation as required by the Local Rules. See LR IB 3-2 4 (requiring “specific written objections with supporting points and authorities” to a magistrate 5 judge’s findings and recommendations).1 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), is 8 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 11 DATED this __1_7__ day of September, 2021. 12 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 1 Plaintiff has an extensive history of filing civil actions in this Court that are either malicious or insufficiently 25 pled. (See R&R 1:14–16, ECF No. 24). In his Objection, Plaintiff merely complains that many of his cases have been dismissed by various judges in this Court and does not comment on the recommendation that this case should be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. (See generally Objection, ECF No. 29).