Holliday v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA LAMAIN HOLLIDAY, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00113-APG-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 9] LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On June 28, 2024, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I dismiss plaintiff 9 Lamain Holliday’s complaint without prejudice because Holliday did not update his address as 10 ordered. ECF No. 9. Holliday did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo 1] review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to 12 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to 13 which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 14 (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 15 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). Judge Albregts’ report 16 and recommendation was returned in the mail. ECF No. 10. Holliday has not taken any action to 17 update his address or otherwise prosecute this case. 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Albregts’ report and recommendation 19 (ECF No. 9) is accepted, and plaintiff Lamain Holliday’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed 20 without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 21 DATED this 16th day of July, 2024. 22 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE