Adams v. Speedy Recovery Inc

Opinion

3 BRANDON G. ADAMS, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00251-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER SPEEDY RECOVERY INC. ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Screening Order and Report & Recommendation, (ECF 11 No. 24), of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler, recommending dismissing with 12 prejudice Plaintiff Brandon Adams’s (“Plaintiff’s”) 10 U.S.C. § 921 claim. Additionally, 13 pursuant to Magistrate Judge Weksler’s Screening Order, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed 14 with leave to amend. Magistrate Judge Weksler noted that “[i]f Plaintiff chooses to file an 15 amended complaint, he must do so by May 28, 2023, or this Court will recommend that his 16 case be dismissed.” (Screening Order and R&R 5:16–18, ECF No. 24). 17 Also pending before the Court is the Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 27), of 18 Magistrate Judge Weksler. After the time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint passed, 19 Magistrate Judge Weksler issued the second Report & Recommendation, recommending that 20 the case be dismissed without prejudice and closed. 21 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 22 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 23 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 24 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 25 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 1 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 2 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 3 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 4 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 5 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 6 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where 7 no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 8 (9th Cir. 2003). 9 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See First Report & 10 Recommendation, ECF No. 24) (setting a May 12, 2023, deadline for objections); (see also 11 Second Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 27) (setting a June 26, 2023, deadline for 12 objections). 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Screening Order and Report & Recommendation, 15 (ECF No. 24), is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff’s claim under 10 U.S.C. § 921 is DISMISSED 16 with prejudice. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation, (ECF No. 27), is 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 20 Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 21 Dated this _2_6__ day of July, 2023. 22 23 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 24 United States District Court 25