Cohan v. Brown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JAMES COHAN, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01807-GMN-VCF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER JUDGE BROWN, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 5), which recommends that the underlying case be 12 dismissed. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 19 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, March 21, 2022, has passed. 25 1 (See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5).1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 5), is 4 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall 6 close the case accordingly. 7 DATED this __2_2__ day of March, 2022. 8 9 10 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 11 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Though the docket reflects that the R&R was returned as undeliverable, (ECF No. 6), Judge Ferenbach already warned Plaintiff that, “[p]ursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the 25 court of any change of address…Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. (Order denying as moot Mot. for Leave 8:16–17, ECF No. 4), (R&R 1:17–21). Indeed, after Judge Ferenbach’s warning, Plaintiff did not update his address.