1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 CARL HALEY, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01604-GMN-BNW 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND GARY MANIFERRIS, et al., RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 5), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler, which recommends dismissing 11 Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 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. 5) (setting an October 20, 2025 deadline for objections). 1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 5), is 4 |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 Dated this _17_ day of November, 2025.

Gloria} . Navarro, District Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2