1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ANDREA WOOD, Case No. 3:22-cv-00515-ART-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 CITY AND COUNTY OF NIAGARA FALLS, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Andrea Wood brings this action claiming violation of 42

for violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as breach of 12 contract. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court are: (1) the Report and Recommendation 13 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin 14 (ECF No. 3), recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of personal 15 jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file an 16 objection (ECF No. 5). Notwithstanding the significant amount of time that has 17 passed since Plaintiff filed her motion to extend time, to date, no objection to the 18 R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts 19 the R&R and will dismiss this case without prejudice. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 21 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 22 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 23 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 24 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 25 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 26 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 27 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 28 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin 5 recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice due to lack of personal 6 jurisdiction over the defendant because the only named defendant is Niagara 7 Falls County, New York, and there are no factual allegations tying the defendant 8 to the District of Nevada. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. 9 Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the 10 R&R in full. 11 The R&R was filed on November 29, 2022, and objections to the R&R were 12 due on December 13, 2022. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to 13 extend time to respond to the R&R. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff sought an extension of 14 45 days, and 45 days from the date the motion was filed was April 7, 2023. 15 Although the Court did not rule on the motion to extend time before April 7, 2023, 16 that date has passed by a significant margin and Plaintiff has not filed an 17 objection to the R&R. Because of the significant amount of time that has already 18 elapsed and because Plaintiff alleges no facts to connect the defendant to the 19 District of Nevada, the Court will not reopen the objection period. 20 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 21 (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 22 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (ECF No. 1) is denied as moot. 24 It is further ordered that the Clerk file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 25 It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice to 26 the extend Plaintiff can assert plausible claims for relief in the correct court. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (ECF No. 5) is 28 granted nunc pro tunc. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. 2 3 DATED THIS 19th day of July 2023. 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28