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)

Download PDF
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?