Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

D. Nevada

Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

DecidedJanuary 6, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01936

StatusUnknown

This text of Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TAYVION POSEY, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01936-GMN-MDC 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 DEPARTMENT,

8 Defendant. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 43), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, which recommends that 11 Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), be 12 DENIED. 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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 19 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 20 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 23 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 24 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, 1 || ECF No. 43) (setting a December 27, 2024, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43), is 4 |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), is 6 || DENIED. 7 Dated this 6 day of January, 2025. “fp, 9 _| Lf Gloria Mi. Navarro, District Judge 10 Unf District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TAYVION POSEY, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01936-GMN-MDC 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 DEPARTMENT,

8 Defendant. 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 43), 10 from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, which recommends that 11 Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), be 12 DENIED. 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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 19 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 20 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 23 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 24 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, 1 || ECF No. 43) (setting a December 27, 2024, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43), is 4 |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), is 6 || DENIED. 7 Dated this 6 day of January, 2025. “fp, 9 _| Lf Gloria Mi. Navarro, District Judge 10 Unf District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posey-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack