Southwest Regional Council Of Carpenters v. COBALT - EDI, LLC.

Filing 19

ORDER Accepting and Adopting Report and Recommendation re 18 Report and Recommendation in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment [ 17] is GRANTED and default judgment be entered against Defendant Cobalt-EDI, LLC in the amount of $25,300.00.The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS,

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
vs.
COBALT-EDI, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-2180-GMN-VCF
ORDER

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

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 18), filed on July 29, 2016, which states that
Plaintiff Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters’ (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment (ECF No. 17) against Defendant Cobalt-EDI, LLC (“Defendant”) should be granted.
As Judge Ferenbach explained, six out of the seven factors articulated by the Ninth Circuit in
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986) weigh in favor of granting default
judgment, and the remaining factor is not dispositive.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is
not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized
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. Therefore, the

4

Court has determined that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s Recommendation should be

5

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
(ECF No. 17) is GRANTED and default judgment be entered against Defendant Cobalt-EDI,
LLC in the amount of $25,300.00.

11

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

12

18
DATED this ___ day of August, 2016.

13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2