Donald v. Lee

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA KEITH DONALD, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00016-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order v. [ECF No. 5] CHRIS LEE, 7 Defendant 8 On May 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I dismiss this case because plaintiff Keith Donald did not pay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and because he did not file a complaint. ECF No. 5. Donald did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those 13} portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review 15}|the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 16} otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) is accepted and this case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 20 DATED this 27th day of May, 2025. 21 22 ANDREW P. GORDON 3 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE