Lesnick v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 RONALD LESNICK, Case No. 2:22-cv-01939-RFB-MDC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 STATE OF NEVADA 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) of the 14 Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on April 19, 15 2024. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 16 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 17 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 19 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 20 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 21 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 22 “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 23 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due 24 by May 3, 2024. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and 25 concurs with all the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 26 27 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be dismissed. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this matter accordingly. 5 6 DATED: May 14, 2024. 7 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-