Cohan v. Binyon

Opinion

1 2 5 * * * 6 JAMES E. COHAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00878-RFB-EJY 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 WILLIAM BINYON, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) of the 13 Honorable Judge Elayna J. Youchah, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on June 30, 14 2025. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 15 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may 16 file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the 18 district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 19 report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a 21 district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and 22 recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to 23 Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by July 14, 2025. No objections have been filed. The 24 Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate 25 Judge’s recommendation. 26 /// 27 /// 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is 1 | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in their 3 official capacities for money damages are dismissed with prejudice. 4 5 6 DATED: July 24, 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-