Bracho v. Clark County Court Interpreters Services

Opinion

ARIEL MORALES BRACHO, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01340-APG-VCF 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting and Modifying Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 7] CLARK COUNTY COURT INTERPRETERS SERVICES, 7 Defendant 8 9 On November 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended that I dismiss this case 10}| with prejudice because the original complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff Ariel Bracho failed to file an amended complaint by the October 28, 2020 deadline as ordered. ECF No. 7. Bracho did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts 14} to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 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 17|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation 19|| (ECF No. 7) is accepted, but I modify it to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The original defect in the complaint was lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bracho may choose to bring his suit in state court, so this case is dismissed without prejudice to him doing so. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 23 DATED this Ist day of December, 2020. G ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE