U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Queen Victoria #1720-104 NV West Servicing LLC

Filing 23

ORDER Accepting and Adopting to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order 22 Report and Recommendation. Denying 21 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiffs claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

U.S. BANK, N.A.,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7

QUEEN VICTORIA #1720-104 NV WEST
SERVICING LLC,

8

Defendant.

9
10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01679-GMN-NJK
ORDER

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

11

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 22), which recommends that Plaintiff U.S. Bank,

12

N.A.’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 21) be DENIED and that Plaintiff’s claims be

13

dismissed.

14

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

(9th Cir. 2003).

25

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

Page 1 of 2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is

3
4
5

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Default
Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.

7

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

8

DATED this 30th day of January, 2015.

9
10
11
12

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

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

Page 2 of 2