Hiyas v. TransUnion ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA BRYAN EDWARD HIYAS, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00388-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 11] TRANSUNION, et al., 7 Defendants 8 On May 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Weksler recommended that I dismiss this case without prejudice because plaintiff Bryan Hiyas did not file an amended complaint by the given 10}| deadline. ECF No. 11. Hiyas did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo 11}|review of the 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) 141 (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)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 11) is accepted and this case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 19 DATED this 20th day of June, 2024. 20 UIE. a ANDREWP.GORDON. SS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23