Brooks v. Keolis Transit America, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TAKISHA BROOKS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00900-RFB-MDC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, LLC 10 Defendant. 11 12 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) of the 13 Honorable Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on 14 July 15, 2025. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 15 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A 16 party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate 17 judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been 18 filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions 19 of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 20 made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, 21 however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the 22 report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 23 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by July 29, 2025. No objections have 24 been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the 25 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 26 /// 27 /// 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is 1 | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 3 The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close this case. 4 5 6 DATED: August 3, 2025. AS 8 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-