Ball v. County of Clark

Opinion

SHAWN MICHAEL BALL, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01352-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 14] COUNTY OF CLARK, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On January 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss Shawn Ball’s second amended complaint without prejudice because Ball has previously been given 10}| opportunities to amend and was unable to do so in a way that stated a viable claim under 42 11}U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 14. Ball did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo 12}|review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to 13}| “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (‘the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation No. 14) is accepted. Shawn Ball’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend it again in this case. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 21 DATED this 11th day of February, 2025. 22 JIA ANDREWP.GORDON. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE