Gates-Middleton v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc.

Opinion

ANN GATES-MIDDLETON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01944-GMN-DJA vs. ) ) ORDER GUARANTEED RATE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 17), of United States Magistrate Judge Albregts, which recommends dismissing Plaintiff Ann Gates-Middleton and Ervin Middleton Jr.’s (“Plaintiffs”) case with prejudice and closing the case. A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 17) (setting a May 19, 2023, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 17), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. Dated this _2_2__ day of May, 2023. ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court