Pathak v. Pathak
Filing
8
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 6 the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DIMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 5 Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED pursuant to the lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
ANSHU PATHAK,
4
5
6
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHETNA PATHAK,
7
Defendant.
8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:18-cv-0157-GMN-NJK
ORDER
9
10
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
11
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 6), which states that this Court does not have
12
jurisdiction.
13
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
14
United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
15
D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
16
determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,
17
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
18
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is
19
not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
20
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized
21
that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
22
where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
23
1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
24
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.
25
Accordingly,
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 6), is
ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DIMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion, (ECF No. 5), is DENIED
pursuant to the lack of jurisdiction.
The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
8
9
12
DATED this ___ day of March, 2018.
10
11
12
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
13
14
15
16
17
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?