Toliver v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers et al

Filing 46

ORDER - Judge Albregt's Recommendation (ECF No. 41 ) is adopted in its entirety.Defendant John D. Mehalko Jr. is dismissed from this action. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/27/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

GEORGE A. TOLIVER,

Case No. 2:17-cv-02612-MMD-DJA
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
9

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
OFFICER J. SOLES, et al.,

10
Defendants.
11
12
13

Plaintiff George A. Toliver brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the

14

Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) of United States

15

Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. (ECF No. 41.) Judge Albregts recommends that the

16

Court dismiss Defendant John D. Mehalko, Jr. pursuant to the Court’s notice of intent to

17

dismiss (ECF No. 31). (ECF NO. 41 at 2). Plaintiff had until March 25, 2020, to file an

18

objection. (See id.) To date, no objection to the recommendation has been filed. For this

19

reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the Recommendation.

20

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

22

fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

23

issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);

24

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of

25

the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both

26

parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed.

27

R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy

28

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

1

recommendation”).

2

Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept

3

the Recommendation. The Court issued a notice of intent to dismiss Mehalko pursuant to

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) unless proof of service was filed by January 4, 2020. (ECF No. 31.)

5

Judge Albregts notes that Plaintiff did not file such proof of service by January 4, 2020.

6

(ECF No. 41 at 1.) Therefore, Judge Albregts recommends that the Court dismiss Mehalko

7

from this case. (Id.) Upon reviewing the Recommendation and underlying filings, this Court

8

finds good cause to adopt Judge Albregts’ Recommendation.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Albregts’ Recommendation (ECF No. 41) is

9
10

adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Defendant John D. Mehalko, Jr. is dismissed from this

11
12
13

action.
DATED THIS 27th day of March 2020.

14
15
16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2