Terryberry v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 81

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 80 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff William Terryberry's 74 Motion for Re-taxation of Costs is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's 75 Motion for Re-Taxation of Costs is GRANTED in part andDENIED in part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's costs be retaxed at $4,195.37. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

WILLIAM TERRYBERRY,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY; DOES I through XX, inclusive; )
and/or ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00658-GMN-CWH
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States

12

Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, (ECF No. 80), which recommends that Plaintiff William

13

Terryberry

Re-taxation of Costs (ECF No. 74) be DENIED and Defendant

14
15
16

-Taxation of Costs (ECF No. 75) be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

17

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1 4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

18

D. Nev. R. IB 3 2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo

19

determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,

20

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3 2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is

22
23

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

24

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where

25

no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122

Page 1 of 2

1

(9th Cir. 2003).

2

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

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 80) is

5

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

7

taxation of Costs (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

9
10

-

Re-Taxation of Costs (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that

12

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2015.

be retaxed at $4,195.37.

13
14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2