Arnold v. Trump Las Vegas Sales & Marketing, Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA MARTE ENCAR ARNOLD, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02239-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 9] TRUMP LAS VEGAS SALES & MARKETING, INC., et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 On December 19, 2024, Magistrate Judge Youchah recommended that I dismiss plaintiff Marie Arnold’s amended complaint without prejudice to Arnold pursuing her breach of contract 11}/and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims in state court. ECF No. 9. Arnold did not object. 12] Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 13]/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 v. 15]| Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the 16]| magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 17} otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Youchah’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 9) is accepted, and plaintiff Marie Arnold’s amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is 20]| dismissed without prejudice to Arnold pursuing her breach of contract and breach of good faith 21} and fair dealing claims in state court. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 22 DATED this 7th day of January, 2025. 23 CG lA ANDREW P. GORDON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE