Aguilar v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Company Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 28, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00359·Unknown

Opinion

3 OSMAN ESTIBI AGUILAR, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00359-GMN-MDC + 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND HERCULES TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY RECOMMENDATION 7 INC., et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 43), 10 of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, which recommends 11 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to update their 12 address in compliance with the Court’s order. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 19 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 20 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 23 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 24 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 1 || No. 43) (setting a March 31, 2025 deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43), is 4 |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 6 Dated this 28 day of April, 2025.

MM Gloria lavarro, District Judge 9 United ‘9 s District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aguilar v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Company Inc., (D. Nev. 2025).

Aguilar v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Company Inc. (Aguilar v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Company Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related