Walters v. The Venetian Resort Hotel and Casino et al

Filing 27

ORDER that 22 , 23 , 25 , plaintiff's motions are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 20 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety and plaintiff's case is dismissed. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ARTHUR TERRY WALTERS,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
THE VENETIAN RESORT HOTEL AND
CASINO, et al.,

11
12

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
EMERGENCY MOTIONS
(Dkt. ## 20, 22, 23, 25)

Defendants.

9
10

Case No. 2:15–cv–00431–APG–VCF

This is a lawsuit brought by pro se plaintiff Arthur Terry Walters against the Venetian
Resort Hotel & Casino.
On June 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach issued a Report & Recommendation

13

recommending that I dismiss Walters’ complaint. (Dkt. #20.) Walters did not object to Judge

14

Ferenbach’s Report and the time to do so has passed. See LR IB 3-1, 3-2. I am not required to

15

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

16

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a district court is not required to

17

review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objection has been filed. See

18

United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must

19

review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

20

otherwise.”). Although not required to, I have conducted a de novo review of Judge Ferenbach’s

21

Order and affirm it in its entirety.

22

Judge Ferenbach recommends that I dismiss because Walters has not paid his filing fees.

23

In a prior Order, the Court ordered Walters to pay his filing fees by April 2, 2015. (Dkt. #5.) That

24

Order advised Walters that if he failed to pay his filing fees by the deadline his case may be

25

dismissed. (Id.) Two months later Walters has still not paid his fees. His case will be dismissed.

26
27
28

Walters recently filed three emergency motions. (Dkt. ## 22, 23, 25.) Each is
unintelligible. They contain a flurry of brackets and legalese that Walters appears to have chosen

1

at random. These motions fail to satisfy numerous requirements under the local rules for

2

emergency motions. There is no explanation of the emergency nature of the motions. See L.R. 7-

3

5(d) (requiring emergency motions to include, among other things, an explanation of the

4

emergency). And they fail to include points and authorities. See L.R. 7-2(d) (explaining that

5

failure to file points and authorities constitutes consent to a denial). Walters’ emergency motions

6

are therefore denied.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. ## 22, 23, 25) are DENIED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s Report &

9

Recommendation (Dkt. #20) is accepted in its entirety and plaintiff’s case is dismissed.

10

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

11

DATED THIS 29th day of June, 2015.

12
13
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2