Yoe v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department Vice Unit

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOSHUA RUELL YOE, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02425-GMN-EJY vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DEPARTMENT VICE UNIT, Defendant.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah recommending that Plaintiff’s claims potentially asserting violations of the First Amendment freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and/or freedom of association clauses be dismissed with prejudice. (See generally Order & R&R, ECF No. 4). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiff’s entrapment claims and Fifth Amendment Miranda claim be dismissed with prejudice. (See id.).

15 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. 24 140, 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).

2 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, || ECF No. 4) (setting a February 25, 2025, deadline for objections). The case docket shows that || mail being sent to Plaintiff, including a copy of the R&R, was being returned undeliverable but || the Court finds good reason to believe that Plaintiff was aware of the docket filings and their ||substance. For instance, the Order & R&R, (ECF No. 4), ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended ||Complaint by March 14, 2025, which Plaintiff complied with. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 7).

8 || Moreover, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to update his address on the docket, an order || that was also returned undelivered, and Plaintiff likewise complied with the order. (See Order, || ECF No. 6).

11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is ||} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims potentially asserting violations of || the First Amendment freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and/or freedom of association 16 clauses are DISMISSED with prejudice.

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims of entrapment are DISMISSED || with prejudice.

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Miranda claim is || DISMISSED with prejudice.

21 Dated this 28 day of March, 2025.

22 Ly Yj, 23 4 if TC Gloria M. Wayarro, District Judge 24 United paper. D Court Page 2 of 2