Caywood v. Hovendick ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JOSEPH CAYWOOD, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-00884-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & MICHAEL HOVENDICK, et al., ) RECOMMENDATION 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 37), 11 of United States Magistrate Judge Weksler, which recommends GRANTING in part 12 Defendants Kyler Gerber and Mitchell Hovendick’s Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 19, 27), 13 and dismissing Plaintiff Joseph Caywood’s First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 16), without 14 prejudice and with leave to amend. She further recommends DENYING Defendants’ Motion 15 for Sanctions, (ECF Nos. 15, 20). 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 20 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 21 the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to 22 object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 23 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to 25 review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States 1 v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.1 (See R&R, ECF 3 No. 37) (setting an August 6, 2024, deadline for objections). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 37), is 6 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 19, 27), 8 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and their Motion for Sanctions, (ECF Nos. 15, 9 20), are DENIED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 16), 11 is DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, he shall have 45 days 12 from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies set forth 13 in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the 14 dismissal of this action with prejudice. 15 Dated this __7__ day of August, 2024. 16 17 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 1 In the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, she also granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, (ECF No. 34). So, at the time of this Order, Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se. The Court still adopts the R&R despite 24 this change for two reasons. First, the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff’s address listed on the docket. Therefore, he received notice of the Magistrate Judge’s disposition and the deadline to file an objection. Second, and related to 25 the first, because Plaintiff had notice, it is his responsibility to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and manage deadlines. See, e.g., Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Pro se litigants are not excused from following court rules[.]”).