Riccio v. Mineral County Sheriff ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER RICCIO, Case No. 3:22-cv-00397-ART-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MINERAL COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Douglas Christopher Riccio (“Riccio”) brings this action 12 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by 13 members of the Mineral County Sheriff’s Department. Before the Court is the 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 15 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 8), recommending the Court dismiss 16 this action without prejudice and administratively close this case. Plaintiff had 17 until April 11, 2023 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has 18 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, 19 and will dismiss the case without prejudice and administratively close the case. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 21 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 22 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 23 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 24 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 25 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 26 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 27 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 28 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 1 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 5 || recommends dismissing the action without prejudice and administratively 6 || closing the case. (ECF No. 8 at 2). Riccio first failed to identify the defendants he 7 || claimed were identified in the violation of his rights and subsequently failed to 8 || file an amended complaint in compliance with the Local Rules. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 3, 9 || 7). The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the 10 || record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 12 || (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 14 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to administratively close this 15 || case. 16 DATED THIS 16th day of June 2023. 17 18 en 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28