Marie Encar Arnold v. Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing Inc., et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MARIE ENCAR ARNOLD, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00035-GMN-MDC 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND TRUMP LAS VEGAS SALE 7 MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS 7 INC., et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court are two Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), (ECF Nos. 10 54, 57), from United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III. The first R&R 11 recommends that Defendant Trump LV 4600 LLC’s Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 9, 26), be 12 denied without prejudice because they were filed pro se. The second R&R recommends that 13 Defendants Trump Consulting & Marketing LLC and Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing I’s 14 Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 14, 18), be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed 15 without leave to amend. 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 Here, Plaintiff did not file an objection to Judge Couvillier’s R&R that recommended 4 her Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See 5 R&R, ECF No. 57) (setting a December 9, 2025, deadline for objections). Defendant Trump 6 LV 4600 filed a limited objection to the first R&R agreeing with Judge Couvillier’s application 7 of the law, but asking the Court to consider a renewed Motion to Dismiss that cured the 8 procedural deficiencies identified in the first R&R. (See Obj., ECF No. 55). But because no 9 objections were filed regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint being dismissed without leave to amend, 10 the Court need not consider Defendant Trump LV 4600’s renewed Motion to Dismiss. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 54), is 13 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Trump LV 4600’s Motions to Dismiss, (ECF 15 No. 9, 26), are DENIED without prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 57), is 17 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Trump Consulting & Marketing LLC 19 and Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing I’s Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 14, 18), are 20 GRANTED. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without 22 leave to amend. 23 /// 24 ///

25 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 2 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close the case. 3 Dated this 16 day of December, 2025. i, Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 6 United District Court 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3