Bernard-Ex v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada

Bernard-Ex v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MR. CLAYTON-M BERNARD-EX, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02218-GMN-NJK 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE RECOMMENDATION 7 DEPARTMENT,

8 Defendant. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 11), 10 of United States Magistrate Nancy J. Koppe, which recommends dismissing this case without 11 prejudice because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a response to the Magistrate 12 Judge’s Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing 13 fee. 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 18 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 19 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 20 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 21 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 22 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 23

140, 149 (1985) (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 24 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 25 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1122

(9th Cir. 2003). 1 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 2 ||No. 11) (setting a March 27, 2025, deadline for objections). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 11), is 5 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 7 Dated this 2° day of April, 2025. 8 Lp Yj, 9 _ ZA (SLA _ Gloria M/Navarro, District Judge 10 United s District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2

Reference

Status
Unknown