Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Adamczyk et al

Filing 85

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accepting and Adopting 84 Report and Recommendation, denying 77 Motion for Permanent Injunction, denying 76 Motion for Default Judgment. Claims against defendants are dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
HAKKASAN LV, LLC, et al.,
4
5
6

Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARK DANIEL ADAMCZYK, et al.,

7
8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01717-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

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

11

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 84), which recommends that the Court denies the

12

Renewed Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 76), and that the claims against Defendants

13

iDrive Orlando, LLC; James Patrick Adamcyzk; and My Domain Holdings, LLC (collectively

14

“Defendants”) be dismissed. Because of this, Judge Koppe further recommends that the Court

15

deny the Amended Motion for Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 77), filed by Plaintiffs

16

Hakkasan LV, LLC, and Hakkasan Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 84), is

6
7
8
9
10
11

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment,
(ECF No. 76), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Permanent
Injunction, (ECF No. 77), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendants are DISMISSED.

12
13

28

DATED this ___ day of April, 2017.

14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2