Smith v. Craig ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 LATONIA SMITH, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00824-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER FENNEMORE CRAIG, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 10 Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, (ECF No. 80), which recommends that Plaintiff’s Second 11 Motion to Vacate Order of Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 74), be denied. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. Local R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. 16 Local R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 17 or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 18 Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . 19 . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 20 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 21 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., 22 United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 24 /// 25 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 80), is 3 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Vacate Order of 5 Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 74), is DENIED. 6 DATED this __1_7___ day of December, 2019. 7 8 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25