Rizzi v. Williams

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — KEVIN RIZZI, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-01721-GMN-DJA — 5 — vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND KELLER WILLIAMS, et. al., ) RECOMMENDATION 7 ) Defendants. ) — 8 — ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 19), 10 of United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts, which recommends dismissing this case 11 without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide proof of service as to any Defendant. The 12 Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not recommend 13 dismissal, but Plaintiff did not respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)(“[i]f a defendant is not served 14 within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to 15 the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that 16 service be made within a specified time.”). 17 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 18 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B); 19 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 20 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 21 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 22 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 23 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); D. Nev. R. 24 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 25 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 1 |) 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 2 || district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 3 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 5 || No. 19) (setting a September 23, 2024, deadline for objections). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 19), is 8 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 Dated this 27 day of September, 2024. 1! □□□ Vf, 2 Whe Gloria M/Navarro, District Judge 13 United fe District Court — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — Page 2 of 2