Andrew Lee v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * ANDREW LEE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01751-RFB-MDC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, 12 Defendant.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) of the Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on December 19, 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. § 19 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). 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 January 2, 2026. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in the Report and Recommendation. /// ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the plaintiff's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 28) is 4) DENIED without prejudice.

6 DATED: January 7, 2026. — CVS g RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] _2-