Washington v. Lippmann ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Michael Washington, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01854-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER Daniel Lippmann, et al., ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 8), of United 10 States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which states that this case should be dismissed 11 without prejudice. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 16 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 18 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 19 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 21 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 22 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 24 25 1 ECF No. 8) (setting a February 5, 2021, deadline for objections).1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 8), is 4 ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 6 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 7 Dated this __8__ day of February, 2021. 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Supplement to his Complaint, (ECF No. 10), but no objection to the Report and Recommendation. Even if the Court construes the Supplement as an Objection, Plaintiff has not 25 cured the defects identified in the Report and Recommendation under the Younger abstention doctrine because he has not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for the Court to intervene in a pending state proceeding. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971).