Yoe v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department Vice Unit

Opinion

JOSHUA RUELL YOE, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02425-GMN-EJY vs. ORDER ADOPTING LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant. Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4), from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah recommending that Plaintiff’s claims potentially asserting violations of the First Amendment freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and/or freedom of association clauses be dismissed with prejudice. (See generally Order & R&R, ECF No. 4). The R&R further recommends that Plaintiff’s entrapment claims and Fifth Amendment Miranda claim be dismissed with prejudice. (See id.). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 4) (setting a February 25, 2025, deadline for objections). The case docket shows that mail being sent to Plaintiff, including a copy of the R&R, was being returned undeliverable but the Court finds good reason to believe that Plaintiff was aware of the docket filings and their substance. For instance, the Order & R&R, (ECF No. 4), ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by March 14, 2025, which Plaintiff complied with. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 7). Moreover, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to update his address on the docket, an order that was also returned undelivered, and Plaintiff likewise complied with the order. (See Order, ECF No. 6). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is } ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims potentially asserting violations of the First Amendment freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and/or freedom of association clauses are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims of entrapment are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Miranda claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated this 28 day of March, 2025. Ly Yj, 4 if TC Gloria M. Wayarro, District Judge United paper. D Court

Page 2 of 2