Buhr v. Tompson

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — JONATHAN DALE BUHR, et al., — 4 — Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02294-GMN-EJY — 5 — vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING TACKESHA TOMPSON, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION — 7 — Defendants. — 8 — 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah recommending that Plaintiffs’ claims 11 against Defendants Tackesha Tompson, Nicola Holland, Steven D. Garison, Robert W. Tueton, 12 Nevada Child Protective Services, and the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, 13 Nevada be dismissed with prejudice as these Defendants are immune from suit. (See generally 14 Order & R&R, ECF No. 4). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiffs’ claims under NRS 15 Chapter 432B be dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiffs have no private right of action under 16 these laws. (Id.). 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 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, 5 || ECF No. 4) (setting a February 17, 2025, deadline for objections). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is 8 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tackesha Tompson, Nicola Holland, 10 || Steven D. Garison, Robert W. Tueton, Nevada Child Protective Services, and the Eighth 11 || Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada be DISMISSED with prejudice from this 12 || action. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs’ claims under NRS Chapter 432B are 14 || DISMISSED with prejudice. 15 Dated this —25_ day of March, 2025. 16 Vf, if Gloria M. ia} arro, District Judge 18 United States District Court — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — Page 2 of 2