Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Sanford Howard Barsky

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA Nicole Beverly Silverberg, Case No. 2:25-cv-02148-CDS-NJK

Plaintiff Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and v. Dismissing the Case

Sanford Howard Barsky,

Defendant [ECF No. 3] Nicole Silverberg initiated this action by filing a complaint for damages and injunctive relief, and application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 1-2. So United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe screened the complaint and issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that I dismiss this case because it “is identical to Plaintiff’s complaint that was already screened and filed on the docket in another pending case.” R&R, ECF No. 3 (citing ECF No. 1-1 in Silverberg v. Barsky, Case No. 2:25-cv-02197-GMN-EJY). Judge Koppe reasons that “the latter case is more advanced given that the screening order has already issued and the complaint has been filed on the docket.” ECF No. 3 at n.1. Silverberg had until December 19, 2025, to file any specific written objections to the R&R. Id. at 2 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2(a) (stating that parties wishing to object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (same). Here, no objection is filed and the time to do so has passed. The law is clear that “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections are filed. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). I therefore accept and adopt the R&R in its entirety. 1 Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 3] is accepted in full. Silverberg’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Because this case is dismissed as duplicative, the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to 5} close this case. J, ) 6 Dated: December 24, 2025 LZ ‘

7 [ f 8 oy ei D. Silva . d States District Judge 9 / ll