Gamage-Samarasek v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 123

ORDER Accepting and Adopting 122 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that 112 Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees on Appeal is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/24/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

SUJANIE V.S.V. GAMAGE aka SUJANIE )
GAMAGE-SAMARASEK; THE BACH LAW )
FIRM, LLC; JASON J. BACH;
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
THE STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. BOARD )
OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM )
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, on behalf of THE )
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS; )
VERNON HODGE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00290-GMN-VCF
ORDER

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 122), which states that the Motion for Attorneys’
Fees on Appeal (ECF No. 112) filed by Defendant the State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents
of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
(“Defendant”) should be denied.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is
not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized
Page 1 of 2

1

that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

2

where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

3

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 122) is

7
8
9
10

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal
(ECF No. 112) is DENIED.
24
DATED this ___ day of October, 2016.

11
12
13

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2