Hicks v. CRS Services, Ltd. et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Joseph Hicks case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

JOSEPH HICKS,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

CRS SERVICES, LTD., et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01808-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States

11

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 14), which recommends that Plaintiff Joseph

12

Hicks’ case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

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. Id. The Court may accept, reject,

17

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

18

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3–2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is

19

not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”

20

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

21

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where

22

no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122

23

(9th Cir. 2003).

24

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly,

25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is

Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Joseph Hicks’ case is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
DATED this 29th day of April, 2015.

5
6
7
8

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2