Ampuero v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Corina Suly Ampuero, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01165-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts, (ECF No. 3), which recommends that this case be 12 dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 19 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 25 1 ECF No. 3) (setting a September 6, 2021, deadline for objections).1 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 3), is 4 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and 6 with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to amend her Complaint, Plaintiff shall file an 7 amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this order properly alleging 8 subject matter jurisdiction. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 10 (ECF No. 1), is DENIED as moot. 11 DATED this ___8__ day of October, 2021. 12 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Memorandum, (ECF No. 4), but not an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Even if the Court construes the Memorandum as an objection, Plaintiff does not provide any 25 information that would refute the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this this case. In fact, Plaintiff states in her Memorandum that “this issue cannot be solved in a Nevada court.” (Memorandum, 2:28–29, ECF No. 4).