Mack v. Aranas ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CHRISTOPHER D. MACK, Case No.: 2:17-cv-02239-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation v. [ECF Nos. 34, 36] 6]/ ROMERO ARANAS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On July 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended that I deny plaintiff Christopher Mack’s motion to amend to the extent he seeks (1) to add three new Doe defendants 10}| and (2) money damages against the defendants in their official capacities. ECF No. 36. Mack 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 13}| determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 14|| made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the 15}| district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 16}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 17 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 36) is accepted and the plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED in part as set forth in Judge Youchah’s order (ECF No. 36). The motion to amend is denied to the extent the amended complaint seeks to add three new Doe defendants or asserts “‘official 21}| capacity” claims for money damages. Those allegations are dismissed with prejudice. 22 DATED this 2nd day of September, 2020. LZ vn 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE