Otomo et al v. Nevada Association Services, Inc. et al

Filing 92

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Foley's 91 Report and Recommendation. Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Nicolas Otomo in favor of Defendants in the amount of $3,507.02. Plaintiff shall file a financial affidavit within 30 days of the entry of judgment in order to allow the court to determine an appropriate award of attorneys' fees against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9

NICHOLAS OTOMO, an individual;
TIMOTHY MCCRIGHT, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated,

2:10-CV-2199 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES,
INC., a Nevada corporation; and
DAVID STONE, an individual,

13
14
15

Defendants.

16

ORDER

17

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley.

18

(Doc. # 91). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has passed.

19

After granting defendants’ motion to enforce settlement, Magistrate Judge Foley

20

recommended that judgment be entered in favor of defendants in the amount of $3,507.02. (Doc. #

21

91). Judge Foley also recommended that plaintiff be required to submit a financial affidavit to allow

22

the court to determine an appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. Id.

23

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

24

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to

25

a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

26

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

2

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

3

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

4

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

5

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

6

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

7

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

8

decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

9

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

10

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

11

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

12

to which no objection was filed).

13

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

14

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation

15

and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings

16

in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

19
20
21

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (doc. # 91) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered against plaintiff Nicolas Otomo in
favor of defendants in the amount of $3,507.02.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a financial affidavit within thirty days

23

of the entry of judgment in order to allow the court to determine an appropriate award of attorneys’

24

fees against plaintiff.

25

DATED April 17, 2014.

26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-