Saragosa v. Xiamen 45 Zhi Ju Technology Co., LTD. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 APRIL SARAGOSA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01380-RFB-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 XIAMEN 45 ZHI JU TECHNOLOGY CO., 11 LTD., et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) of the 15 Honorable Brenda N. Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on June 5, 2024. A district 16 court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 17 by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the 18 findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). 19 When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo 20 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 21 to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party 22 fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or 23 otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 24 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by June 19, 2024. No objections 25 have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate 26 Judge’s recommendation. 27 /// 28 /// ! IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is 2 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute by ‘ the court-ordered deadline. ° The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this matter accordingly. 6 7 8 DATED: October 15, 2024 se. RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-