1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEPHANIE LEILANI ALVES, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00231-GMN-NJK 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND NEVADA POWER COMPANY, et al., RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 12), 10 of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which recommends dismissing this case 11 with prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by the October 26, 2024, 12 deadline, seek an extension, or otherwise take further action in this case. (See generally R&R). 13 The Magistrate Judge’s screening order determined that the first complaint failed to establish 14 subject matter jurisdiction, failed to state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, and 15 found that Plaintiffs’ claim against Public Utilities Commission of Nevada was barred by 16 Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Screening Order, ECF No. 10). The Order warned that 17 failing to file an amended complaint would “result in the recommended dismissal of this case.” 18 (Id. at 6). 19 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 20 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

(b)(1)(B); 21 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 22 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 23 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 24 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 25 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

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

|| 140, 149 (1985) (citing

(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 4 || district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 5 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 6 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 7 ||No. 12) (setting February 6, 2025, deadline for objections). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 12), is 10 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close this case. 13 Dated this _11_ day of February, 2025. 14 15 Glorjé M. Navarro, District Judge 16 UnitedsStates District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2