Woods et al v. Maximus Coffee Group et al

Filing 7

ORDER Accepting and Adopting in part 4 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' first Complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***
4

IAN A. WOODS et al,
Case No.: 2:14-cv-01556-RFB-VCF
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT
& RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
MAXIMUS COFFEE GROUP et al,

8

Defendants.
9
10
11

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) of the
Honorable V. Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered October 7, 2014.

12

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

13

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific

14

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §

15

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is

16

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

17

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local

18

Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct

19

“any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

20

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

21
22

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by October 24, 2014. No objections
have been filed. The Plaintiffs did file an Amended Complaint on October 29, 2014.

23

The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s

24

recommendation(s). These recommendations, however, must be placed in the context of the

25

1

current record, since the Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint in apparent response to the

2

Report and Recommendation.

3
4
5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' first Complaint is DISMISSED.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2015.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II.
United States District Court Judge