Cadeaux v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Austin Cadeaux, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01584-JAD-VCF

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation 6 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., [ECF Nos. 32, 50, 53] 7 Defendants 8

9 Pro se plaintiff Austin Cadeaux sues the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and 10 four of its officers for excessive force and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss 11 Cadeaux’s complaint,1 and then Cadeaux moved for leave to file an amended complaint and for 12 additional time to do so.2 Cadeaux also moved to stay this case because he has limited access to 13 the law library at High Desert State Prison, where he is incarcerated.3 Magistrate Judge 14 Ferenbach granted Cadeaux’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint,4 which Cadeaux 15 did.5 Judge Ferenbach now recommends that I deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot 16 because Cadeaux has been given leave to file an amended complaint,6 and he also recommends 17 that I deny Cadeaux’s motion to stay this case.7 The deadline for any party to object to that 18 19 1 ECF No. 32. 20 2 ECF Nos. 44, 47. 21 3 ECF No. 50. 4 ECF No. 53. 22 5 ECF No. 54. 23 6 ECF No. 53. 7 Id. 1} recommendation has passed, and no party filed an objection or requested to extend the deadline do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”® Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 53] is ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ 7|| motion to dismiss [ECF No. 32] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 8]| Cadeaux’s motion to stay this case [ECF No. 50] is DENIED. 9 10 cewent February 22, 2022 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).