American Express National Bank v. Freeman

Opinion

3 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00094-GMN-MDC 5 vs. 6 AMENDED1 ORDER ADOPTING YAUSMENDA FREEMAN, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendant. 8

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 1 This Amended Order is filed to correct an error in the conclusion of the original Order. The original Order held that the case shall be remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 25 County, Nevada. However, the case originated in Henderson Justice Court and shall be remanded accordingly. 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 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, 4 || 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 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Henderson 9 || Justice Court. 10 The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close the case and STRIKE ECF No. 7. 1] 12 Dated this 3 day of March, 2025. 13 j, yy Gloria M. Mayarro, District Judge 15 United Sta payer, D Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2