1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 WILLIAM BAQUERO, ) 4 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00775-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER CHRISTOPHER LALLO, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 7), of 11 United States Magistrate Brenda Weksler, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff William 12 Baquero’s (“Plaintiff”) case with prejudice and closing the case. 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. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 17 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 18 the Magistrate Judge.

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to 19 object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 20 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to 22 review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States 23 v. Reyna–Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 25 No. 7) (setting a July 21, 2023, deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 7), is 3 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,1 (ECF No. 5), is 5 DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is 6 instructed to close the case. 7 Dated this _2_4__ day of July, 2023. 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed as a Motion to Cease and Desist Violation of Due Process, (ECF No. 5). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge and undersigned liberally construe Plaintiff’s Motion as an Amended Complaint. (R&R 1:16–20).