Eiland v. Fohs

Opinion

* * *

TYRRELL JONES EILAND, Case No. 2:20-CV-2011 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s), ORDER

v.

JASON R. FOHS, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the court dismiss this case for pro se plaintiff Tyrell Jones Eiland’s failure to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). Nevertheless, Jones was warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in his case being dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 4 at 6). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Ferenbach’s R&R (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED May 7, 2021. ae Lias C. Atala UNITED, STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-