Sinnard et al v. Clark County Social Services et al
Filing
5
ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/29/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
CHRISTOPHER SINNARD, et al.,
vs.
Case No.: 2:24-cv-01715-GMN-MDC
Plaintiffs,
CLARK COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES, et
al.,
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
9
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4),
10
from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, which recommends that
11
Plaintiffs’ case be dismissed in its entirety for failure to file new in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
12
applications or pay the filing fee.
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.4) (setting a December 27, 2024, deadline for objections). Nor have Plaintiffs
2
complied with the Court’s Order, (ECF No. 3), by filing new IFP applications or paying the
3
filing fee.
4
Accordingly,
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is
6
7
8
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ case is DISMISSED in its entirety
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close the case.
9
10
Dated this ____
29 day of January, 2025.
11
12
13
___________________________________
Gloria M Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court
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?