Smith v. Perkins

D. Nevada

Smith v. Perkins

DecidedApril 2, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01931

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Perkins (Smith v. Perkins) 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

Smith v. Perkins, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOHN MICHAEL SMITH, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01931-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 9] RICHARD PERKINS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On March 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss this case 9] without prejudice because plaintiff John Smith did pay the initial partial filing fee as ordered. ECF No. 9. Smith did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 11}|report and recommendation. 28 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 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 15}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)) 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 9) is accepted and this case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 19 DATED this 2nd day of April, 2024. 20 Z : 71 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 JOHN MICHAEL SMITH, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01931-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 9] RICHARD PERKINS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On March 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss this case 9] without prejudice because plaintiff John Smith did pay the initial partial filing fee as ordered. ECF No. 9. Smith did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 11}|report and recommendation. 28 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 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 15}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)) 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 9) is accepted and this case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 19 DATED this 2nd day of April, 2024. 20 Z : 71 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Perkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-perkins-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack