Holly v. Morse ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 BENJAMIN HOLLY, Case No. 2:16-cv-02592-RFB-DJA 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 MORSE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8] of the 15 Honorable Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge, entered July 11, 2019. 16 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 17 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 18 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 20 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 21 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 22 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 23 “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due 25 by July 25, 2019. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case 26 and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 27 . . . 28 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation [ECF 2} No.8] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 4 The Court Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 5 6 DATED: August 21, 2019. 7 RICHARD {: Soe I 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-