1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00630-CDS-BNW 4 Francisco Arcibal,

5 Plaintiff Order Overruling Objection to Report and Recommendation (R&R), Adopting R&R, 6 v. and Dismissing Case

7 Natasha Koch, et al., [ECF Nos. 8, 10]

8 Defendants

9 Pro se plaintiff Francisco Arcibal objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that I 10 dismiss this action. ECF No. 8. For the reasons set forth herein, I overrule Arcibal’s objection and 11 adopt the R&R in full. I also instruct the Clerk of Court to close this case. 12 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 13 recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b)(1). Further,

(b)(1) 14 provides that if a party makes a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 15 this court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 16 recommendation] to which objection is made.” See also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3); see also Schmidt v. 17 Johnstone,

(D. Ariz. 2003) (discussing the Ninth Circuit’s view that 18 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 19 Arcibal timely objected on July 17, 2023. ECF No. 10. But his objection does not address 20 the reason that Magistrate Judge Weksler recommends that I dismiss this case, which is 21 Arcibal’s failure to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in her screening 22 order. See ECF No. 8 (“[T]he Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint no later 23 than June 1, 2023.”). Liberally construed,1 Arcibal’s objection addresses the initial screening 24

1 A document filed pro se must “be liberally construed.” Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976). 1 order issued by the magistrate judge. See generally ECF No. 10. Objections to a magistrate judge’s 2|| recommendation that do nothing more than state a disagreement with the suggested 3] resolution—or simply summarize what has been presented before—are not objections as that 4|| term is used in this context.

(b)(1); see also United States v. Brooks,

(W.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2022). Arcibal failed to comply with the court’s deadline to file an amended 6|| complaint, nor did he explain why he did not comply or seek additional time to do so. Further, 7|| he failed to demonstrate that the magistrate judge’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or 8] contrary to the law. Asa result, I overrule Arcibal’s objection, adopt the R@R in its entirety, and dismiss this action.* 10 Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Arcibal’s objection [ECF No. 10] is OVERRULED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s Report and 13|| Recommendation [ECF No. 8] is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. This action is dismissed without prejudice. And the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THISCASE. 15 DATED July 21, 2023 // 16 Sf £41. v7 ting na D. Silva . United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 > [note that the defendants were not served in this case, so I did not need to wait for a response to the 24 objection before ruling on it.