Smith v. Wolfson

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * COREY DANE SMITH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00350-RFB-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

14 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) of the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on April 10, 2025. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a).

19 When written objections have been filed the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by April 24, 2024. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

27 Consistent with Judge Weksler’s Order, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint and did so. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be screened | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1951 A(a).

2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Steve Wolfson, William Merback, Kayla | Simmons, Kassandra Acosta and Clark County District Attorney’s Office are DISMISSED from | this action with prejudice.

8 | DATED: May 29, 2025.

10 AG RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-