Jablonski Enterprises, LTD v. Nye County et al

Filing 106

ORDER Adopting in full 104 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that 69 Defendant Brust's Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall pay the total sum of $1,639.25 and is ordered to make the payment to Defendants by October 2, 2017. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 70 Defendants Lithium, Summa, and Tonking's Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the total sum of $2,016.00, and is ordered to make the payment to Defendants by October 2, 2017. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

JABLONSKI ENTERPRISES, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NYE COUNTY, NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF
ORDER

10
11

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

12

States Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr., (ECF No. 104), regarding Defendant Clayton P.

13

Burst’s (“Burst”) and Defendants Lithium Corporation (“Lithium”), Summa, LLC (“Summa”),

14

and Henry Tonking’s (“Tonking”) Motions for Attorney’s Fees, (ECF Nos. 69, 70).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 104), is

4
5

ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brust’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees,

6

(ECF No. 69), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall pay the total sum of

7

$1,639.25 and is ordered to make the payment to Defendants by October 2, 2017.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lithium, Summa, and Tonking’s

10

Motion for Attorney’s Fees, (ECF No. 70), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

11

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the total sum of $2,016.00, and is ordered to make the payment to

12

Defendants by October 2, 2017.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

14

DATED this ___ day of September, 2017.
12

15
16
17

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2