Posey v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 44

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43 ), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29 ), is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/6/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7

TAYVION POSEY,
vs.

Case No.: 2:23-cv-01936-GMN-MDC

Plaintiff,

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

8

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant.

9

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 43),

10

from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, which recommends that

11

Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), be

12

DENIED.

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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings

17

and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate

18

judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

19

findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R.

20

IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any

21

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

22

140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

23

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been

24

filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

25

No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R,
Page 1 of 2

1

ECF No. 43) (setting a December 27, 2024, deadline for objections).

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 43), is

4
5
6
7

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), is
DENIED.
Dated this ____
6 day of January, 2025.

8
9
10

___ _______ _______________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2