Eiland v. Fohs ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 TYRRELL JONES EILAND, Case No. 2:20-CV-2011 JCM (VCF) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 JASON R. FOHS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”) that the court dismiss this case for pro se plaintiff Tyrell Jones 15 Eiland’s failure to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). 16 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de 17 novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo 18 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which 19 objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 20 banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 21 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). 22 Nevertheless, Jones was warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in his 23 case being dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 4 at 6). 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Ferenbach’s 26 R&R (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED. This case is DISMISSED with 27 prejudice. 28 1 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 2 DATED May 7, 2021. 3 ae Lias C. Atala 4 UNITED, STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 es C. Mahan District Judge _2-