Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Abah et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendations. Granting 19 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:14-CV-858 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
EBONI ABAH, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12

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

13

Ferenbach. (Doc. # 24). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections

14

has passed.

15

Upon reviewing plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company’s motion to interplead

16

funds, (doc. # 19), and defendant Eboni Abah’s response, (doc. # 21), Magistrate Judge

17

Ferenbach recommended that the motion be granted.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

23

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

24

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

25

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

26

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

27

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

28

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz.

2

2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district

3

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if

4

there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the

5

recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting,

6

without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

7

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

8

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

9

recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the

10

Upon reviewing the

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

11

Accordingly,

12

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

13
14

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach, (doc. # 24), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to interplead funds, (doc. # 19), be,

15

and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

16

DATED September 8, 2014.

17
18
19

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-