Peterson v. The Siegel Group Nevada, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CARY PETERSON, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02265-APG-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF Nos. 17, 19] THE SIEGEL GROUP NEVADA, INC., et al., Defendants 9 On April 16, 2025, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I dismiss plaintiff Cary Peterson’s complaint because Peterson did not comply with court orders to pay the filing fee or complete an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to update his address. ECF No. 19. Judge Albregts also recommended that I deny the plaintiff’s motion to request electronic access to the court because (1) the motion does not actually seek authorization as an electronic filer, (2) it actually seeks a temporary restraining order, and (3) Peterson has not shown he is entitled to injunctive relief. Id. 16 Peterson did not object, and the report and recommendation was returned in the mail.

17 ECF No. 20. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).

23 / / / / ] I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Albregts’ report and recommendation 2|| (ECF No. 19) is accepted and this case is dismissed without prejudice. Consequently, all 3|| pending motions (ECF Nos. 9, 17) are DENIED as moot. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case.

5 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2025.

6 ZL a ANDREW P.GORDON sis g CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]