Harriet H. Roland, M.B.A., J.D., Ltd. vs Darlene Hickman, et al

Filing 78

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 74 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DI SMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 47 defendant IRS's motion to reconsider be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

HARRIET H. ROLAND, M.B.A, J.D., LTD.,

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 2:15-CV-1133 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
DARLENE HICKMAN, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 74). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has

15

since passed.

16

Also before the court is defendant Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) motion to

17

reconsider. (ECF No. 47). Defendant Marvin Hickman filed a response (ECF No. 51), to which

18

defendant IRS replied (ECF No. 54).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

objections were made).

3

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

4

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

5

recommendation and underlying case, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the

6

magistrate judge’s findings.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

9

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 74) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

10
11
12
13
14

Upon reviewing the

its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant IRS’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 47) be,
and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.

15

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

16

DATED November 6, 2017.

17
18

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-