Jones v. Tierney

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Case No. 2:23-cv-01527-RFB-DJA Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRENDA TIERNEV, et al., Defendants. Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) of the Honorable Daniel J. Albregts, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on March 20, 2024. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by April 3, 2024. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this matter accordingly. DATED: April 16, 2024

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-