1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6 * * *
7 PETER TIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01659-RFB-NJK
8 Plaintiff, ORDER
9 v.
10
Defendants.
11
12
13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) of the
14 Honorable Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 30, 2025. 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 14, 2025. Having
24 reviewed the (ECF Nos. 13-16) filings by Plaintiff, the Court finds they cannot be liberally
25 construed as objections, because they do not address the substance of the Report and
26 Recommendation, which recommends dismissal without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to file
27 a complaint, pay the filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, despite being
28 ordered to do so. Because this case cannot proceed without Plaintiff’s compliance with Court
1 | orders, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is
3 | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending Motions (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16) are
6| DISMISSED as moot.
7 DATED: October 20, 2025.
tS
9 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.