Wheeler v. Brager et al
Filing
20
ORDER accepting and adopting 19 Report and Recommendation and denying 14 Motion to Extend 2 Year Time Frame, 16 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and 18 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/27/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
ANTONIO WHEELER,
vs.
Case No.: 2:24-cv-00682-GMN-EJY
Plaintiff,
SUSAN BRAGER, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
9
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 19),
10
of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends denying Plaintiff’s
11
Motion to Extend 2 Year Time Frame, (ECF No. 14), and Motion for IFP, (ECF No. 16). The
12
Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
13
be denied because she recommends that his case not be reopened. (See generally R&R).
14
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
15
United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
16
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
17
determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings
18
and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate
19
judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
20
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R.
21
IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any
22
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
23
140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a
24
district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been
25
filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page 1 of 2
1
2
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF
No. 19) (setting January 21, 2025, deadline for objections).
3
Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 19), is
5
6
7
8
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions, (ECF No. 14, 16, 18), are
DENIED.
Dated this ____
27 day of January, 2025.
9
10
11
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2
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?