1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MICHAEL-STEVE COX, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ATTORNEY GENERAL FORD, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Michael-Steve Cox (“Cox”) brings this action under the 12 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against Nevada Attorney General Ford and 13 the State of Nevada (ECF No. 1-1). Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 11), recommending the dismissal of this action 16 without prejudice and denying as moot Cox’s Motion Regarding Removal of FOIA 17 Claims to the Eighth Judicial District Court. (ECF No. 9). Cox had until 18 November 21, 2022 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has 19 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, 20 dismisses the action without prejudice, and denies as moot Cox’s Motion 21 Regarding Removal. (ECF No. 9). 22 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 23 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 24 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 25 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 26 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 1 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 2 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 3 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 4 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 5 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 6 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. The Court incorporates Judge 7 || Denney’s analysis by reference here. Judge Denney recommends dismissing this 8 || action without prejudice because Cox has not paid the $402 filing fee as || previously ordered by this Court in ECF No. 10. 10 The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Denney. Having reviewed the 11 || Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court will adopt 12 || the Report and Recommendation in full. 13 It IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Denney’s Report and 14 || Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cox’s Motion Regarding Removal of FOIA 17 || Claims is denied as moot. (ECF No. 9). 18 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. 19 20 DATED THIS 13th Day of January 2023. 21 22 Yrs □ flosend 23 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28