Lowery v. MCSO Officers

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — BRANDON DALE LOWERY ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:24-cv-01194-GMN-DJA — 5 — vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ADOPTING MCSO OFFICERS, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 ) Defendants. ) — 8 — ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 9), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Danniel J. Albregts. On July 26, 2024, the Court denied 11 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and required him to file a new one on or 12 before August 26, 2024. (ECF No. 8). In doing so, the Court informed Plaintiff that “[f]ailure 13 to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this 14 case be dismissed. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything further in this action and 15 appears to have ceased prosecuting it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). As such, Judge Albregts’ 16 R&R recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 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. 9) (setting a September 30, 2024, deadline for objections). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF 7 ||No. 9), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All 9 || pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close out 10 || this case. 11 Dated this 7 day of October, 2024. — 12 — — 13 — Gloria Mi Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — Page 2 of 2