GNLV, Corp. v. Southeast Amusement, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER adopting 81 Report and Recommendations to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff GNLV Corp.s Motion for Default Judgment 47 is DENIED as to the Kampfs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plain tiff GNLV Corp.s Motion for Permanent Injunction 48 is DENIED as to the Kampfs. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment 47 and Permanent Injunction 48 are still pending as to Defendants Robert Hutchinson and Bar of Gold. The Court will addres s these motions as to these defendants in a separate order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Kampfs Motion to Set Aside Default 64 is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

GNLV, CORP.,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

SOUTHEAST AMUSEMENT, INC., et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00048-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9

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

10
11

Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen, (ECF No. 81), which recommends that Plaintiff GNLV

12

Corp.’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 47) and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 48) be

13

denied as to Defendants Kenneth R. Kampf, Sr. and Bonnie R. Kampf1 (collectively “the

14

Kampfs”). Judge Leen also recommended that the Kampf’s Motion to Set Aside Default (ECF

15

No. 64) be granted.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

16
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

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

23

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

24
25

1

Both Kenneth R. Kampf, Sr., and Bonnie R. Kampf are named as Defendants in their capacities as
Trustees of the Kenneth R. Kampf, Sr., and Bonnie R. Kampf Revocable Living Trust. The court will
refer to them simply as the Kampfs.
Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

(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. 81) is

7
8
9
10

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff GNLV Corp.’s Motion for Default
Judgment (ECF No. 47) is DENIED as to the Kampfs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff GNLV Corp.’s Motion for Permanent

11

Injunction (ECF No. 48) is DENIED as to the Kampfs. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

12

Judgment (ECF No. 47) and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 48) are still pending as to

13

Defendants Robert Hutchinson and Bar of Gold. The Court will address these motions as to

14

these defendants in a separate order.

15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Kampf’s Motion to Set Aside Default (ECF No.
64) is GRANTED.
DATED this 19th day of December, 2014.

18
19
20
21

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

22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2