Hale v. Rettig

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ROBERT HALE, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01904-GMN-VCF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER CHARLES RETTIG, IRS Commissioner, et ) 7 al., ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 11), which recommends that this case be 12 dismissed without prejudice. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 19 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 25 ECF No. 11) (setting a September 8, 2022 deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 11), is 3 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 5 The Clerk is instructed to close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 6 DATED this __9__ day of September, 2022. 7 8 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25