Pelletier v. Pelletier ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 GREG PELLETIER, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-01915-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ADOPTING R&R CHRISTOPHER PELLETIER, JAMES ) 7 MASSETT SR., JEFFARY TOYE, ) MICHAEL NEWMAN, ROBERT MURPHY ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 5), of 11 United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff 12 Greg Pelletier’s Complaint with prejudice, dismissing without prejudice his Petition for Adult 13 Name Change, and dismissing without prejudice as moot his Motion to Proceed in forma 14 pauperis, (ECF No. 4). 15 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 16 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 17 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 18 determination of those portions to which objections are made. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 19 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 20 the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to 21 object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 22 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to 24 review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States 25 v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 2 No. 5) (setting a December 21, 2023, deadline for objections). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 5), is 5 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Adult Name Change be 8 DISMISSED without prejudice so that Plaintiff may proceed in the Eighth Judicial District 9 Court for Clark County, Nevada. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, 11 (ECF No. 4), is DENIED without prejudice as moot. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 13 Dated this _2_9__ day of December, 2023. 14 15 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 16 United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25