Amschel Rothschild El v. TuneCore Inc.

Opinion

3) AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD EL, Case No.: 2:26-cv-00055-APG-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation v. [ECF Nos. 3, 7, 12] 6 TUNECORE INC., 7 Defendant 8 On February 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I deny plaintiff Amschel Rothschild El’s motions at ECF Nos. 3 and 7. ECF No. 12 at 6. Rothschild El did not 10} object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 1128 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 15} otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Albregts’ report and recommendation (ECF No. 12) is accepted, and plaintiff Amschel Rothschild El’s motions (ECF Nos. 3, 7) are 18] DENIED. 19 DATED this 25th day of February, 2026. 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE