Pritchett v. Nguyen & Lay Attorneys at Law

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SHAWN PRITCHETT, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00410-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 4] NGUYEN & LAY ATTORNEYS AT LAW, and ESQ. ROCHELLE NGUYEN, 7 Defendants 8 9 On March 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I dismiss plaintiff Shawn Pritchett’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. Pritchett did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States 14] v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review 15]| the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation 18] (ECF No. 4) is accepted, and plaintiff Shawn Pritchett’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 19} for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pritchett is denied leave to amend in this case, but the 20]| dismissal is without prejudice to Pritchett pursuing his claims in state court. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 22 DATED this 3rd day of April, 2025. 23 G ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE