Zanon v. Beauty by Design et al

Filing 66

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Judge Youchah's R&R (ECF No. 65 ) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 26 ) is STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that def endants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC, and Red Rock Surgery Center's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Robert Troell's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC, and Red Rock Surgery Center's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 63 ) is REJECTED as moot. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment for defendants and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/17/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:20-cv-02080-JCM-EJY Document 66 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FABIENNE ZANON,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:20-CV-2080 JCM (EJY)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
BEAUTY BY DESIGN, et al.,,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 65). It is recommended that the plaintiff Fabienne Zanon’s (“plaintiff”)

15

first amended complaint be stricken and judgment entered in favor of defendants.

16

Also pending before the court are defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC,

17

and Red Rock Surgery Center’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) and defendant Robert

18

Troell’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff responded to both. (ECF No. 29).

19

Replies were filed. (ECF Nos. 30, 31).

20

Also pending before the court is defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC, and

21

Red Rock Surgery Center’s motion for summary judgment.

22

responded. (ECF No. 37). Defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC, and Red Rock

23

Surgery Center replied. (ECF No. 38).

(ECF No. 32).

Plaintiff

24

Also pending before the court is a proposed pretrial order. (ECF No. 63).

25

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

26

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely

27

objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, then the court is required to “make a de novo

28

determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” Id.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:20-cv-02080-JCM-EJY Document 66 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

1

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any

2

review at all…of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

3

140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required

4

to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See United States

5

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

6

employed by the district court when reviewing a R&R to which no objections were made).

7

No objections were filed to the R&R in this case and the deadline to do so has passed.

8

Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R and hereby

9

ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Youchah’s

12

R&R (ECF No. 65) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 26) is

13
14

STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC,

15
16

and Red Rock Surgery Center’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Robert Troell’s motion to dismiss (ECF

17
18

No. 28) is DENIED as moot.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants David Malitz, David Malitz MD PC,

20

and Red Rock Surgery Center’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is DENIED as

21

moot.

22
23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 63) is
REJECTED as moot.

24

The clerk is instructed to enter judgment for defendants and close the case.

25

DATED November 17, 2022.

26
27

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-