Woods v. Store Front/ Valley Behavioral Health ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TERRYETT O. WOODS, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00476-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. STORE FRONT/VALLEY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 7 Defendant 8 9 On April 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Couvillier recommended that I dismiss this case because plaintiff Terryett Woods did not either complete a long-form application to proceed in 11}| forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by the given deadline. ECF No. 4. Woods did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 131U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the 16}| magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 17|| otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Couvillier’s report and recommendation 19|| (ECF No. 4) is accepted, and plaintiff Terryett Woods’ complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 21 DATED this 16th day of May, 2024. ge— 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE