Smith v. Perkins ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOHN MICHAEL SMITH, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01931-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 15] RICHARD PERKINS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On June 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I dismiss plaintiff John Smith’s complaint without prejudice to Smith seeking relief under state law in another court. ECF No. 15. Smith did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the 11}|report and recommendation. 28 U.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 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation No. 15) is accepted, and plaintiff John Smith’s amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is dismissed without prejudice to Smith pursuing his state law claims in another court. The clerk of 19} court is instructed to close this case. 20 DATED this 16th day of July, 2024. 21 (IEA ANDREWP.GORDON. SS 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE