Villamor v. Metcalfe

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CHADWICK FABIAN VILLAMOR, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00940-APG-NJFK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing 5} v. Defendant Adam Solinger 6]| OFFICER J. METCALFE, et al., [ECF No. 16] 7 Defendants 8 On November 21, 2024, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss plaintiff Chadwick Villamor’s claims against defendant Adam Solinger because the claims against 10}| Solinger are unrelated to the other claims in the complaint and so are improperly joined in this ECF No. 16 at 2-3. Villamor did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo 12}|review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to 13}| “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 objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 16) is accepted and plaintiff Chadwick Villamor’s claims against defendant Adam Solinger are dismissed without prejudice. 20 DATED this 12th day of December, 2024. 21 ANDREWP.GORDON. 3 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE