First American Title Insurance Company v. Allen-Cook et al

Filing 48

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accepting and Adopting 47 Report and Recommendation, granting 30 Motion for determination of Good Faith Settlement. J. Scott MacDonald and MacDonald & Associates, Ltd. dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.

7
8
9

LORI ALLEN-COOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01272-GMN-CWH
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, (ECF No. 47), of United
States Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, which recommends that Defendants J. Scott
MacDonald and MacDonald & Associates, Ltd.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith
Settlement, (ECF No. 30), be granted.
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
where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.
Page 1 of 2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 47), is

3
4

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants J. Scott MacDonald and MacDonald &

5

Associates, Ltd.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (ECF No. 30), is

6

GRANTED. The parties are thereby afforded the protection of Nevada Revised Statute

7

17.245, including but not limited to, dismissal of any claims for equitable indemnity and

8

contribution in this matter.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendants J. Scott MacDonald
and MacDonald & Associates, Ltd. are dismissed with prejudice.

11
12

19
DATED this _____ day of September, 2017.

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