Saterstad v. Drug Enforcement Administration
Filing
14
ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hoffman's 13 Report and Recommendation is accepted. Plaintiff Richard Lee Saterstad's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
RICHARD LEE SATERSTAD,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
v.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
Defendant.
9
Case No. 2:16-cv-01947-APG-CWH
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 13)
10
11
On March 1, 2018, Magistrate Judge Hoffman issued a report and recommendation in
12
which he recommends that I dismiss plaintiff Richard Lee Saterstad’s complaint with prejudice
13
because it is time-barred. Saterstad did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct
14
a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district
15
courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
16
findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
17
Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and
18
recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and
20
recommendation (ECF No. 13) is accepted. Plaintiff Richard Lee Saterstad’s complaint is
21
DISMISSED with prejudice.
22
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2018.
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?