Case Information
*1 Case 2:24-cv-02156-RFB-MDC Document 11 Filed 04/14/25 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * LANCE GOODIN, et al. , Case No. 2:24-cv-02156-RFB-MDC Plaintiffs, ORDER v. JOHN LAPORT, et al. , Defendants.
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, United States Magistrate Judge, dated November 26, 2024 (ECF No. 5). For the reasons explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo [1] or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed pro se an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and proposed Complaint. ECF No. 1. On November 26, 2024, Judge Couvillier properly screened the Complaint in the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 5. Judge Couvillier [1] De novo review simply means a review by one court using the lower court’s record but reviewing the evidence and the law without deference to the lower court’s findings and rulings. See Appeal, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
*2 Case 2:24-cv-02156-RFB-MDC Document 11 Filed 04/14/25 Page 2 of 2 found the Complaint suffered several fatal defects and recommended dismissal without leave to amend. Id. Later that day, believing he had jurisdiction pursuant to General Order 2023-11, Judge Couvillier vacated the R&R and issued the same as an order. ECF No. 6. On December 5, 2025, Judge Couvillier reinstated his original order, determining that he actually lacked jurisdiction under the General Order. ECF No. 7. On December 9, 2024, in light of these developments, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an objection to the reinstated R&R to December 31, 2024. ECF No. 9. The Court finds from the record that no objection or other submission was filed by Plaintiffs.
No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 5) is ADOPTED in full. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. DATED: April 14, 2025.
_______________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 2 -