Anderson v. Pastuna

Opinion

* * *

Arnold Anderson, Case No. 2:19-cv-02098-RFB-DJA

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Pastuna, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] of the Honorable Daniel J. Albregts, United States Magistrate Judge, entered April 27, 2020. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by May 11, 2020. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. . . . 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. DATED: May 28, 2020. United States District Judge

_2-