Baker v. Penney OPCO LLC

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02084 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING PENNEY OPCO LLC, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court are two Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), (ECF No. 15, 10 17), from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. The first R&R recommends that 11 Plaintiff Hezekiah Baker’s claims for fraud and “malice” be dismissed with prejudice (See 12 generally First R&R, ECF No. 15). The second R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s claims 13 stating a failure to respond to a consumer complaint, negligent infliction of emotional distress, 14 and fraudulent concealment claims be dismissed with prejudice. (See generally Second R&R, 15 ECF No. 17). 16 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 17 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 18 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 19 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 20 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 21 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 22 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 23 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 24 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 25 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 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&Rs were filed, and the deadlines to do so have passed. (See 4A || generally First R&R) (setting a June 3, 2025, deadline for objections); (See generally Second 5 || R&R) (setting a July 2, 2025, deadline for objections). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the first Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 15), 8 |}is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 10 || 17), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims for fraud and “malice” are 12 || DISMISSED with prejudice. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims stating a failure to respond to a 14 || consumer complaint, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent concealment 15 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 Dated this 8 day of July, 2025. 17 Yj, 18 (Wy Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 19 United Side District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2