Byron Harmon v. Brett Waggoner, et al.

Opinion

BYRON HARMON, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01591-GMN-EJY vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND BRETT WAGGONER, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 14), of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. The R&R orders some of Plaintiff’s claims dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (See R&R 8:17–27, ECF No. 14). For the claims which were dismissed with leave to amend, the R&R ordered that Plaintiff must so amend “no later than October 3, 2025.” (Id. 9:4–5). That date has now passed, and no amended complaint was filed, which the Court construes as Plaintiff abandoning his case. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. 9:23– 10:6). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), be dismissed without prejudice, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, (ECF No. 9), be denied. (Id. 10:7–16). 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). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 14) (setting an October 4, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 14), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline: Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Aaron Ford; Plaintiff’s Monell claims asserted against Nye County and Pahrump Township; and Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against the individual defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice based on Judge Youchah’s recommendation: Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Nevada, the Nye County Manager Brett Waggoner, Nye County Commissioners Jabour, Boskovich, Strickland, Koenig, and Bayne, Nye County Code Enforcement Officer Gancarz, and Nye County District Attorney Kunzi; Plaintiff’s Count 1 (alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983), Count 2 (alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241), and Count 3 (alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 242); Plaintiff’s ultra vires claims asserted against Nye County and Pahrump

Township; and Plaintiff’s Trespass on Rights to Liberty and Property claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 7), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 8), are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as MOOT. Because all of Plaintiff's claims are now dismissed, the Court kindly directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. Dated this 21 day of November, 2025. yp, Gloria M. NaWarro, District Judge United we District Court

Page 3 of 3