Alves v. Nevada Power Company

Opinion

STEPHANIE LEILANI ALVES, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00231-GMN-NJK vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND NEVADA POWER COMPANY, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants. Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 12), of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which recommends dismissing this case with prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by the October 26, 2024, deadline, seek an extension, or otherwise take further action in this case. (See generally R&R). The Magistrate Judge’s screening order determined that the first complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, failed to state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, and found that Plaintiffs’ claim against Public Utilities Commission of Nevada was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Screening Order, ECF No. 10). The Order warned that failing to file an amended complaint would “result in the recommended dismissal of this case.” (Id. at 6). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 12) (setting February 6, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 12), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close this case. Dated this _11_ day of February, 2025. Glorjé M. Navarro, District Judge UnitedsStates District Court

Page 2 of 2