Buhr v. Tompson

Opinion

JONATHAN DALE BUHR, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02294-GMN-EJY vs. ORDER ADOPTING TACKESHA TOMPSON, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah recommending that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Tackesha Tompson, Nicola Holland, Steven D. Garison, Robert W. Tueton, Nevada Child Protective Services, and the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada be dismissed with prejudice as these Defendants are immune from suit. (See generally Order & R&R, ECF No. 4). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiffs’ claims under NRS Chapter 432B be dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiffs have no private right of action under these laws. (Id.). 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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. 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). No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 4) (setting a February 17, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tackesha Tompson, Nicola Holland, Steven D. Garison, Robert W. Tueton, Nevada Child Protective Services, and the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada be DISMISSED with prejudice from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs’ claims under NRS Chapter 432B are DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated this —25_ day of March, 2025. Vf, if Gloria M. ia} arro, District Judge United States District Court

Page 2 of 2