Cuara R. v. Cuara

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CONSTANTINO CUARA R., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00610-RJS-JCB

JESSICA RENIA CUARA, et al., Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation1 issued in the above captioned case by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on June 24, 2024. Pro se Plaintiff Cuara R. has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the IFP Statute.2 The Report recommends the case be dismissed with prejudice under the authority of the IFP Statute.3 In the Report, Judge Bennett notified the parties of their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) to file any objections to the Report within 14 days of being served with a copy of it.4 He cautioned that “[f]ailure to object may constitute waiver of objections upon subsequent review.”5 More than 14 days have now elapsed and no party has filed an objection to the Report. When no objections are filed, the Supreme Court has suggested no further review by the district

1 Dkt. 8, Report and Recommendation. 2 Dkt. 4. 3 Report and Recommendation at 1. 4 Id. at 4. 5 Id. court is required, but nor is it precluded.® This court reviews for clear error any report and recommendation to which no objections have been raised.’ Having carefully considered the Report, the court determines Judge Bennett’s analysis and conclusions are sound. The court finds no clear error and the Report is adopted in full. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under the authority of the IFP Statute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED this 9th day of July 2024. BY THE COURT:

ROBERT F< United Stas Chief District Judge

6 See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“The [Federal Magistrate’s Act] does not on its face require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). T See, e.g., Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Ifno objection or only partial objection is made [to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation], the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”) (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1983 Amendment (“When no timely objection 1s filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted).