DuBose v. Hilton Grand Vacations Club, LLC

Opinion

3 BARBARA DUBOSE, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00648-GMN-DJA 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND HILTON GRAND VACATIONS CLUB, RECOMMENDATION

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 48), 11 of United States Magistrate Daniel J. Albregts. Magistrate Judge Albregts recommends that the 12 Court grant Defendant Hilton’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (ECF No. 46), and that the Court 13 order Plaintiff to pay the law firm of Littler Mendelson, P.C. its attorneys’ fees totaling 14 $3,107.50. 15 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 16 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 17 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 18 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 19 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 20 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 21 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 22 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 23 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 24 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 25 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 1 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 3 || No. 48) (setting a May 5, 2025 deadline for objections). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 48), is 6 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hilton’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 8 || (ECF No. 46), is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is entitled to $3,107.50 in reasonable 10 || attorneys’ fees. 11 Dated this 8 day of May, 2025. 12 hy Yj, 13 4A YIU Gloria M. Mayarro, District Judge 14 United Sta afao.D Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2