Duymayan v. Las Vegas City Code Enforcement

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MERT DUYMAYAN, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-CV-00225-GMN-EJY 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS CITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT,

8 Defendant. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 3), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah recommending that this matter be 11 DISMISSED in its entirety because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 12 claim. Judge Youchah also recommends that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application be 13 DENIED because it is incomplete. 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 18 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 19 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 20 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 21 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 22 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 23 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 24 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 25 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). ] No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, 2 || ECF No. 3) (setting a February 20, 2025, deadline for objections). Plaintiff filed an Amended 3 || Complaint, (ECF No. 4), after the R&R was filed, but the Court does not construe the Amended 4 || Complaint as an Objection because Magistrate Judge Youchah explained in the R&R that 5 || amendment would be futile. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 8 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 10 || 1) is DENIED. 1] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaints, (ECF Nos. 1-2, 4), are 12 || DISMISSED without prejudice so that Plaintiff can, if he so chooses, pursue his claim in the 13 || Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. 14 The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close the case. 15 16 Dated this 27 day of February, 2025. 17 Vf, 18 Jy 1 Gloria Mf Navarro, District Judge 19 United is District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2