On Demand Direct Response, LLC et al v. McCart-Pollak
Filing
171
ORDER accepting and adopting ECF No. #161 Report and Recommendation; dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Shana Lee McCart-Pollak for failure to prosecute; and denying as moot ECF No. #167 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
***
5
6
ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE, LLC
AND ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE
III, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8
9
SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLACK D/B/A
LOL BUDDIES ENTERPRISES,
10
Defendants.
11
SHANA LEE MCART-POLLAK,
Defendant/Counter Claimant,
12
13
14
15
v.
ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE LLC,
A Delaware company; ON DEMAND
DIRECT RESPONSE III, LLC, a Delaware
Company,
16
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN HARRINGTON, an individual,; AS
SEEN ON TV, INC., a Florida company;
SPIRAL TOYS LLC, a California company;
MARK MEYERS, an individual; DRAGON-I
TOYS LTD, California company; JAT AT
PLAY INTERNATIONAL, a New York
company; DIGITAL TARGET
MARKETING, a Florida company;
HUTTON MILLER, a Florida company;
ECHO FACTORY, a California company;
DOES I-S; ROE Business Entities I-X,
Third-Party Defendants.
Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-VCF
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAM FERENBACH
1
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
2
Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 161) (“R&R”), submitted on April 28, 2016, relating to
3
the Court’s February 5, 2016, order requiring Plaintiffs On Demand Direct Response,
4
LLC an On Demand Direct Response III, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) to retain counsel by March 7,
5
2016. (See ECF No. 99.) The R&R recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. (ECF
6
No. 161.) Plaintiffs had until May 15, 2016, to file objections. (Id.) To date, no objection
7
to the R&R has been filed.
8
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
9
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
10
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
11
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
12
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
13
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
14
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
15
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
16
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
17
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
18
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
19
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
20
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
21
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
22
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
23
the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at
24
1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no
25
objection was filed).
26
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
27
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s R&R. Upon reviewing the
28
///
2
1
R&R and the records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate
2
Judge’s R&R in full.
3
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
4
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No.161) is accepted and
5
adopted in its entirety.
6
7
8
9
10
It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Shana Lee McCartPollak are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
It is further ordered that Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Shana Lee McCartPollak’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 167) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 24th day of May 2016.
11
12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?