Armstrong v. Chapman

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEVEN MATTHEW ARMSTRONG, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00575-GMN-BNW 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING TYLER SMITH, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 13), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda N. Weksler recommending that two of Plaintiff’s 11 claims be dismissed. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 13). 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 16 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 17 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 18 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 19 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 20 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 21 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 22 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 23 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See 25 generally R&R) (setting an April 17, 2025, deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 13), is 3 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim based on the 5 illegal arrest in Case No. C-23-378525 against Detective Chapman is DISMISSED without 6 || leave to amend. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment claim based on unfair 8 ||jury selection against District Attorneys Afshar and Jaramillo is DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 Dated this 30 day of April, 2025. □□ 11 LH Ve Gloria M/Npvarro, District Judge 12 United A“ s District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2