Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC

D. Nevada

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC

DecidedOctober 5, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-01033

StatusUnknown

This text of Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC (Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) 4 COMPANY, ) ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01033-GMN-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 vs. ) ORDER ) 7 GLOBAL PANDA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 28), which recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for 12 Default Judgment, (ECF No. 25), be granted. 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. Local 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. 17 Local R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 19 Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . 20 . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 21 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 22 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., 23 United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R. & R., ECF 25 No. 28) (setting a September 23, 2021, deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 28), is 3 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 5 25), is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until November 5, 2021, to file a 7 proposed Default Judgment. 8 DATED this __5____ day of October, 2021. 9 10 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 11 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) 4 COMPANY, ) ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01033-GMN-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 vs. ) ORDER ) 7 GLOBAL PANDA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 28), which recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for 12 Default Judgment, (ECF No. 25), be granted. 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. Local 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. 17 Local R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 19 Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . 20 . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 21 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 22 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., 23 United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R. & R., ECF 25 No. 28) (setting a September 23, 2021, deadline for objections). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 28), is 3 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 5 25), is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until November 5, 2021, to file a 7 proposed Default Judgment. 8 DATED this __5____ day of October, 2021. 9 10 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 11 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Global Panda Entertainment, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-specialty-insurance-company-v-global-panda-entertainment-llc-nvd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack