District Court, D. Nevada, 2025

Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
District Court, D. Nevada · Decided January 6, 2025
Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TAYVION POSEY, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01936-GMN-MDC vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 43), from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, which recommends that Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), be DENIED.

13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

25 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, || ECF No. 43) (setting a December 27, 2024, deadline for objections).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43), is |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), is || DENIED.

7 Dated this 6 day of January, 2025. “fp, 9 _| Lf Gloria Mi. Navarro, District Judge 10 Unf District Court Page 2 of 2

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.