1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 VALERIE BANKS, Case No. 2:23-CV-00772-ART-NJK

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CAI 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Valeries Banks brings this action under Title VII of the Civil 12 Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. 13 United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Kope ordered Plaintiff to show cause 14 by June 20, 2023 why the case should not be dismissed or transferred as being 15 filed in an improper venue. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff never filed anything in response. 16 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 17 “Recommendation”) of Judge Kope (ECF No. 4), recommending the Court dismiss 18 the case without prejudice. Plaintiff had until July 13, 2023 to file an objection. 19 To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained 20 below, the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss the case without prejudice. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 22 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 23 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 24 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 25 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 26 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 27 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 28 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 1 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 2 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 3 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 5 || and is satisfied Judge Kope did not clearly err. Here, Plaintiff alleged that CAI 6 || engaged in age discrimination, retaliation/harassment, and defamation of 7 || character. (ECF No. 1-1 at 11.) Judge Kope recommends the Court dismiss the 8 || case because the District of Nevada is an improper venue. (ECF No. 4 at 1.) 9 || Defendant CAI appears to be located in Pennsylvania and it is not currently clear 10 || where Plaintiffs claims occurred. (Id.) Thus, the Court agrees with Judge Kope 11 || that it is an improper venue. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this 12 || case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Kope’s Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that the case is dismissed without prejudice. 16 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close the case. 17 DATED THIS 31st Day of August 2023. 18 19 Ares plod 20 ANNER.TRAUM ———<“—C*;S UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28