Chipman v. Lyft, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JAMES CHIPMAN, Case No.2:23-CV-761 JCM (BNW) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 LYFT, INC., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 35). She recommends that this case be dismissed for 15 plaintiff James Chipman (“plaintiff”)’s failure to comply with the court’s order granting defendant 16 Lyft, Inc. (“defendant”)’s motion to compel (ECF No. 31) and the court’s order to show cause 17 (ECF No. 34). (ECF No. 35 at 2). Specifically, she notes that plaintiff never filed a show cause 18 19 response regarding why he should not be sanctioned for failing to respond to the order granting 20 defendant’s motion to compel. (Id. at 1). 21 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo 22 review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of 23 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United 24 25 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must 26 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 27 otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). 28 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Weksler’s R&R (ECF No. 35) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED IN FULL. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 6 The clerk is instructed to close this case. 7 DATED June 17, 2024. 8 9 Mbttes © MaMa 10 UNITED,STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-