Moosman v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 EDRINNA MOOSMAN, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:24-cv-00720-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., et. al., ) RECOMMENDATION 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 5), of 10 United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends dismissing with 11 prejudice Plaintiff’s claim alleging a violation of California Government Code § 12940 because 12 the employment events underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Nevada, not California. 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 18 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 19 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 20 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 22 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 23 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 24 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 1 || No. 5) (setting a June 18, 2024, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 5), is 4 |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim alleging a violation of California 6 || Government Code § 12940 is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 Dated this 24 day of June, 2024. “hp, 9 J eC Gloria/M} Navarro, District Judge 10 ee ates District Court 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2