Gil v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

LALAINE GIL, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:23-cv-02103-GMN-BNW vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE RECOMMENDATION DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. Pending before the Court is the Order and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 9), of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, which recommends dismissing this case without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s second amended complaint deadline. (See generally R&R). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 9) (setting May 12, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 9), is } ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close this case. Dated this 29 day of June, 2025. Vf, Gloria M. Mayarro, District Judge United sie District Court

Page 2 of 2