Sweet v. Yamashita

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Christy K. Sweet, Case No. 2:23-cv-00886-CDS-DJA 5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Mooting Plaintiff’s 6 v. Motion for Hearing and Closing the Case Wesley F. Yamashita, [ECF Nos. 12, 13] 8 Defendant 10 Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that I dismiss this case for plaintiff Christy Sweet’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. R&R, ECF No. 13. As this was Sweet’s third time amending her complaint to no avail, the R&R also recommends that I dismiss the case without leave to amend. Sweet had until September 9, 2024, to file any objections to the R&R. Id. at 4 (citing LR IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to an R&R must file objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 16 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). As of the date of this order, Sweet has failed to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”

18 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). As no objections have been filed, I adopt the R&R in full.

21 Prior to Judge Albregts’ issuance of the R&R, Sweet had filed a motion for a hearing.

22 ECF No. 12. However, because I adopt the R&R in full and dismiss Sweet’s amended complaint, the motion for a hearing is denied as moot.1 Further, because Sweet has already attempted to amend her complaint twice2 and has been unsuccessful, I dismiss this complaint without leave Because plaintiff is pro se, her filings are be construed liberally, so the court reviewed Sweet’s motion for a hearing and determined that no hearing was necessary.

2 See ECF No. 1 (plaintiff’s original complaint), ECF No. 7 (plaintiff’s motion to amend).

1 to amend as it would be futile. See US. ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th 2| Cir. 2001) (explaining that when assessing whether leave to amend is proper one of the factors courts consider is “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments”) (internal quotation omitted).

5 Conclusion 6 It is therefore ordered that Judge Albregts’ report and recommendation [ECF No. 13] is adopted in its entirety. This action is now dismissed without prejudice and without leave to 8|| amend. Further, Sweet’s motion for a hearing [ECF No. 12] is denied as moot.

9 The Clerk of the Court is kindly instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. / ) u Dated: October 4, 2024 □□□ Cristina’D. Silva 1B Unease District Judge 14 (