Randall v. Corporate Consulting Services, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TODD RANDALL, individually and on Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-RFB-MDC behalf of all other similarly situated, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 CORPORATE CONSULTING SERICES, 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 14 Honorable Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, United States Magistrate Judge, dated May 7, 2024 15 (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff Todd Randall failed to file an objection by the May 21, 2024, deadline. For 16 the reasons explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full. 17 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 19 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 21 required to “make a de novo1 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 22 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 23 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 24 “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 26 27 1 De novo review simply means a review by one court using the lower court’s record but 28 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). 1 district court is not required to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where no 2 objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 3 2003); Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, if there is no objection to a 4 Magistrate Judge’s report, then the court may accept the report without review. See Thomas, 474 5 U.S. at 149-50. 6 No objection was filed in this case. The Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the 7 Magistrate’s R&R in full. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Report 8 and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for 10 failure to file proof of service of process. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will close the case. 12 13 DATED:June 20, 2024. 14 15 _______________________________ RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28