Kurian v. SNAPS Holding Company

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 THOMAS K. KURIAN, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-01757-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United 11 States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youcha, (ECF No. 36), which states that Plaintiff Thomas 12 Kurian’s (“Plaintiff”) Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Parties, (ECF 13 No. 31), should be denied without prejudice so that Plaintiff may file a second renewed motion 14 to amend if Plaintiff discovers new facts that support all elements necessary to state an alter ego 15 claim. (R. & R. at 8, ECF No. 36). 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. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 20 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 22 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 23 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 36), is 5 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend 7 Complaint to Add Parties, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the 9 date of this Order to file a second renewed motion to amend, if Plaintiff discovers new facts 10 that support all elements necessary to state an alter ego claim. 11 DATED this _2_4_ day of September, 2020. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25