American Express National Bank v. Freeman

Filing 9

SECOND AMENDED ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the #4 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to North Las Vegas Justice Court. The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close the case and STRIKE ECF No. #8 . Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/5/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Docket Sheet and order mailed to NLVJC - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK,

5
6
7

vs.

YAUSMENDA FREEMAN,
Defendant.

8

Case No.: 2:25-cv-00094-GMN-MDC

Plaintiff,

SECOND AMENDED 1
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

9

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 4),

10

from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III recommending that this

11

matter be REMANDED back to state court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

12

over the matter.

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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings

17

and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate

18

judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

19

findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R.

20

IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any

21

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

22

140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

23
24
25

This Second Amended Order is filed to correct an error in the conclusion of the First
Amended Order. The Amended Order held that the case shall be remanded to the Henderson
Justice Court. However, the case originated in the North Las Vegas Justice Court and shall be
remanded accordingly.
1

Page 1 of 2

1

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been

2

filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

3
4

No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R,
ECF No. 4) (setting a February 21, 2025, deadline for objections).

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 4), is

7
8
9
10

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to North Las Vegas
Justice Court.
The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close the case and STRIKE ECF No. 8.

11
12

5 day of March, 2025.
Dated this ____

13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2