Ampuero v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation et al

Filing 5

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 3 the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and with leave to amend. Amended Complaint due within 21 days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1 Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Corina Suly Ampuero,
4
5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, et al.,

7
8

Defendants.

9
10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01165-GMN-DJA
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States

11

Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts, (ECF No. 3), which recommends that this case be

12

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

20

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

21

that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

22

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

23

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order,

25

Page 1 of 2

1

ECF No. 3) (setting a September 6, 2021, deadline for objections).1

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is

4

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and

6

with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to amend her Complaint, Plaintiff shall file an

7

amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this order properly alleging

8

subject matter jurisdiction.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
(ECF No. 1), is DENIED as moot.

11

DATED this _____ day of October, 2021.
8

12
13
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Memorandum, (ECF No. 4), but not an objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Even if the Court construes the Memorandum as an objection, Plaintiff does not provide any
information that would refute the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this this case. In fact, Plaintiff states in her Memorandum that “this issue cannot be solved in a
Nevada court.” (Memorandum, 2:28–29, ECF No. 4).

Page 2 of 2