Edwards v. Conn's, Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA FRANCINE EDWARDS, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01998-APG-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation v. [ECF No. 159] CONN APPLIANCES, INC.), et al., 7 Defendants 8 On September 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge Weksler granted in part plaintiff Francine Edwards’ motion to amend to the extent Edwards withdrew her claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Judge Weksler recommended that I deny Edwards’ motion to amend to add a claim the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. ECF No. 159. 12 Edwards did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 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 15}| objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 16}| banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 17|| novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 18 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation 19|| (ECF No. 159) is accepted. Plaintiff Francine Edwards’ motion to amend (ECF No. 133) is 20] granted in part and denied in part as set forth in Judge Weksler’s report and recommendation. 21 DATED this 15th day of October, 2020. 22 JINR 3 ANDREWP.GORDON. SS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE