1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 LISANDRO QUINTANILLA, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-02117-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), of 10 United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which recommends dismissing the case 11 without prejudice. Also pending before the Court is the Motion/Application for Leave to 12 Proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), filed by Plaintiff Lisandro Quintanilla. 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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. L. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 19 the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

(b)(1); D. Nev. 20 L. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct 21 “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474

, 149 (1985) (citing

(b)(1)); see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 23

(9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, Plaintiff filed a Response to the R&R, (ECF No. 4). But Plaintiff’s Response does 25 not address the reasoning of the R&R. Rather, Plaintiff’s Response re-states the facts alleged in 1 the Complaint. (Compare Resp. to R&R, ECF No. 4, with Compl., ECF No. 1-1). Thus, the 2 Court need not conduct review of the R&R. 3 Moreover, even if the Court could liberally construe pro se Plaintiff’s Response as a 4 proper objection to the R&R, the Court would nonetheless accept the R&R in full. On January 5 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Koppe entered an Order to Show Cause instructing Plaintiff to 6 demonstrate the basis for federal jurisdiction of this matter in writing no later than January 24, 7 2023. (OSC, ECF No. 2). Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Having 8 reviewed the Complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the 9 Complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff has not provided a basis for the Court to exercise 10 jurisdiction. Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 12 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in 14 forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), is DENIED as moot. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to its 16 refiling in an appropriate venue. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 18 Dated this _1__3_ day of July, 2023. 19 20 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 21 United States District Court 22 23 24 25