McClannahan v. Nevada State Bank ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3], F. MICHAEL MCCLANNAHAN, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00611-APG-CWH 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Setting Deadline to v. File Amended Complaint NEVADA STATE BANK, [ECF No. 4] 7 Defendant 8 On July 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommended that I dismiss plaintiff F. Michael McClannahan’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 4. McClannahan did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 14|| district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF 17|| No. 4) is accepted and plaintiff F. Michael McClannahan’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 30, 2019, plaintiff F. Michael McClannahan may file an amended complaint consistent with the instructions in Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal and closure of this case without prejudice. 23 DATED this 6th day of August, 2019. ( So ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE