1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ROBERT NELSON, III, Case No. 3:22-cv-00184-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Robert Nelson, III brings this action against Homeland 11 Security, US Food, and the United States Federal Government generally for 12 violations of the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 4.) Before the Court is the Report 13 and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 14 Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 6), recommending that this case be dismissed 15 without prejudice and administratively closed because Nelson, III did not timely 16 file an amended complaint as required by the Court and because the allegations 17 in this case are frivolous. (ECF No. 3.) The parties had until August 2, 2022 to 18 file an objection to the R&R. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For 19 this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss 20 this case without prejudice and administratively close this case. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 22 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 23 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 24 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 25 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 26 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 27 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 28 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 1 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 2 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 3 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 5 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 6 || recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice both because Nelson, III did 7 || not timely file an amended complaint within 30 days of June 8, 2022 as ordered 8 || by the Court (ECF No. 3) and because the allegations in this complaint are 9 || frivolous since the only description of the cause of action is simply the phrase 10 || “photo, video, drone, satalite [sic].” (ECF No. 6.) Judge Denney also noted that 11 || the Court’s order granting Nelson, III leave to amend within 30 days was not 12 || returned as undeliverable, though the Court’s April 27, 2022 advisory letter was 13 || returned as undeliverable. ([d.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having 14 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 15 || full. 16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 17 || (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court administratively close this case. 20 21 DATED THIS 24 day of December 2022. 22 23 en 2 Ye Nowsd 25 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28