Armstrong v. Chapman

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA STEVEN MATTHEW ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00575-GMN-BNW vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING TYLER SMITH, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 13), from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler recommending that two of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 13).

12 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. 21 140, 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).

24 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See generally R&R) (setting an April 17, 2025, deadline for objections).

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 13), is || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim based on the illegal arrest in Case No. C-23-378525 against Detective Chapman is DISMISSED without || leave to amend.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment claim based on unfair ||jury selection against District Attorneys Afshar and Jaramillo is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9 Dated this 30 day of April, 2025. □□ 11 LH Ve Gloria M/Npvarro, District Judge 12 United A“ s District Court Page 2 of 2