Cruz-Mosquera v. Gurries et al

Filing 15

ORDER. No objection was filed, this Court ACCEPTS the 13 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's 6 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/5/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

l

2
3
'

4

,

A

5
6

UNI
TED STATES D I
STRI CO URT
CT

7

DI
STRI O F NEVA DA
CT

8

9 BA RNA RDO CRUZ- O SQ UERA,
M

1
0

.
.

Pl nif
aitf,

3: CV- - VPC)
IO- SM RCJI

V.

11

'

K.G U RRI etal,
ES,
1
2

O RD ER

.

Def
endant
s.
1
3

1
4

Bef e t Cour i t e Repor and Rec m endaton oft Unied St es M agitat
or he
ts h
t
om
i
he
t
at
sr e

1 Judge( No. (Recommendatonr ent edonJune14,2011,i whi t Magitat
5
ECF 13)M
i ) er
n ch he
sr e
1 Judger ommendst t sCour gr Def
6
ec
hat hi
t ant endans'Mot t Di s ( No.9)
t
i o smis ECF
on
.
1
7
No obj i t t Repor and RecommendatonhasbeenGl
ecton o he
t
i
ed.
1
8

1 Dl
. scussl
oN

1
9
. Thi Cour M
s
t may ac ,r ec, or modiy i whol or i par,t fn ngs or
cept ej t
f, n
e
n t he idi
2 r c mmen a in ma b t ma sr t M U. C. 63 b)1 .Fu ter u de 2 U. C,
0 eo
d to s he y he gitae.28 S. j 6( ( ) rh , n r : S.

21 j 636( ( ,ia pary mak atmel obecton t t magi r ej s r
b)1) f
t
es i y j i o he
stat udge' ecommen i
daton,
2 t t sCour i r r t M e adenovodet mi i o t
2 hen hi
ts equied o mak
er naton f hose pori oft Iepor '
t
ons he r t
2 and r
3
ecommendat t whih pbj ton i made.l Nevedhel t st ut does not
i o c
onl
eci s
/
ess, he at e
24 uequiel s I
r r ) ome esserr e byIhi Cour)whennoobect ar fl b
eviw t s
t
j i
ons e i Thomasv. n,
ed.
Ar 474
25 U. 1 1
S. 40, 49-50(985) I ead,
1 . nst underhest ut t sCoudi notr r t conduc u
t at e,hi
s equied o
t any
2 r ew ataI...ofanyi t i nott subj ofanUbecton. 1aat1 Si l l t
6 evi
I
ssue hats
he ect
j i f#
49. mi y,he
ar
.

.

27

.

28

lForanobeqi t betpel a parymusts v andfl iwihi 1 day at bei
j ton o i y,
r
t
ere
i t t n 0 s fer ng
e
se-edwi t magltat j
t he
h
sr e udge' r
s epod andr
ecommendaton. 8u. c. 63 ()1( .
i 2 s. j sb()c)
1

1 Ni hCicuihasr
nt r t ecogni t adititcour i n r r t r iw amagitaej s
zed hat src
ts ot equied o eve
srt udge'
2 r t r
eporand ecommendatonwher noobectonshav beenfl SeeUni St esv.
i
e
j i
e
i
ed.
t at Revnaed

'

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4

Tapi 328 F. 111 ( hCi.2003)( sr dig t sandar ofr ew empl ed byt
a,
3d 4 9t r
di egar n he t
d evi
oy
he
dititcourwhenr ewi ar orandr ommendatont c noobj tonswer madel
src
t
evi ng ep t ec
i owhih
eci
e
;
seeal Schmi v.
so
dt Johnsone, F.
t 263 supp. 1219,1226( Arz.
2d
D. i 2003)(eadi t Ni h
r ng he nt
Cicui' deci on i Reyna- a as adoptng t vew t dititcouës ar n9tr r t
r ts si n
Tapi
i he i hat s rc
e
equied o
r ew u isuet i n t subec ofan obect H.
evi any s hat s othe j t
j i )Thus,it e i no obj i t a
on.
f her s
ect o
on
magitat j
s r e udge' r om mendaton,hent s Cour m ayacc t r om mendat wihou
s ec
i t hi
t
ept he ec
i t t
on
r ew.Seee. ,
evi
n.Johnst 263F.
one,
supp. at1226( ceptng, t tr e amagitat
2d
ac i wi
hou eviw,
sr e
j
udge' r
s ecommendatont whih no obectonwasfl .
i o c
j i
i
ed)
' I t s case,t e have been no obect fl t t Magitat Judge' Repor and
n hi e her
j i i o he
ons ed
sr e
s
t
Recommendaton.Al
i
t
hough noobeci wasfl t sCour hasr ewedt Repor and
j ton
i hi
ed,
t
evi
he
t
Recommendaton ( No.13)andacc si.Ac di y,
i ECF '
ept t cor ngl
.
I I HEREBY ORDERED t Def
T S
hat endant Moton t Dimi (
s' i o s ss ECF No.9) i
s

1 G I ANTED.
5
R

1
6

'

I I FURTHER ORDERED t Pl nt r Com pl nt(
T S
hat ai i s
f
ai ECF No.6)i DI I
s SM SSED

1 WI
7
THO UT PREJUD I E.
C
18

I I SO O RDERED.
T S

'

1
9
20

DATED: s 5t day ofJul 2011.
Thi h
y,
'

21

.

22

23

R BERT C .J
Chi Di rct
ef st i

24

25
26
27

28

2

ES .
r Judge
t