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)

Download PDF
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?