1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 KEVIN WHITFIELD, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01049-GMN-EJY 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CHAMBERS BROADSPIRE SERVICES, RECOMMENDATION 7 INC., et al.

8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 9), of 10 United States Magistrate Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Second 11 Amended Complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 16 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 17 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 18 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 19 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 20 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

140, 149 (1985) (citing

(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 22 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 23 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 25 No. 9) (setting an August 6, 2025, deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 9), is 3 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5 be DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend in this Court. This dismissal 6 || will allow Plaintiff, if he so chooses, to file his complaint alleging battery and other state law 7 claims against the named Defendants in the Eighth Judicial District Court. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Third Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 10), is 9 || STRICKEN because the Court’s dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint does not allow 10 || for leave to amend. 1] The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this case. 12 Dated this 21 day of October, 2025.

14 J, {1 Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge I5 United Sta ry District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2