Enricque Franco v. Dax Lopez, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * ENRICQUE FRANCO, Case No. 2:24-cv-02261-RFB-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. DAX LOPEZ, et al., Defendants.

14 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) of the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 29, 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 October 10, 2025. 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.

27 /// 28 /// ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims be DISMISSED with prejudice: 4| Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claim 8 is DISMISSED as improperly joined.

Plaintiff granted leave to file this claim in a separate suit should he choose to do so.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED without | prejudice and with leave to amend: Claims 3, 4, 5, and 7.

10 DATED: January 7, 2026.

12 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-