Orr v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ADDISON ORR, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00432-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case 5 v. [ECF No. 10] 6 STATE OF NEVADA and JERRY HOWELL, 7 Defendants 8

9 On June 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I dismiss this case without 10 prejudice because plaintiff Addison Orr did not pay the filing fee or complete an in forma 11 pauperis application as directed and because Orr appears to have abandoned the case. ECF No. 12 10. Orr did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 13 report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo 14 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 15 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 16 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 17 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation 19 (ECF No. 10) is accepted and the complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. The 20 clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 21 DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020. 22

23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE