Randall v. Linq Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 RYAN KENNETH RANDALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-00338-RFB-EJY 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER v. 10 LINQ SECURITY et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) of the 14 Honorable Elayna J. Youchah, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 25, 2024. A 15 district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 16 made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the 17 findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). 18 When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo 19 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 20 to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party 21 fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or 22 otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 23 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by October 9, 2024. No 24 objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the 25 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ! IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is 2 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this matter accordingly. 5 6 DATED: October 21, 2024 es ° RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-