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
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?