Baquero v. Lallo

Opinion

WILLIAM BAQUERO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00775-GMN-BNW vs. ) ) ORDER CHRISTOPHER LALLO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 7), of United States Magistrate Brenda Weksler, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff William Baquero’s (“Plaintiff”) case with prejudice and closing the case. 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. 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. 7) (setting a July 21, 2023, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 7), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,1 (ECF No. 5), is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. Dated this _2_4__ day of July, 2023. ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court 1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed as a Motion to Cease and Desist Violation of Due Process, (ECF No. 5). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge and undersigned liberally construe Plaintiff’s Motion as an Amended Complaint. (R&R 1:16–20).