Mesi v. Pennymac Loan Services LLC

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ERIC THOMAS MESI, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00207-GMN-CLB 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 10 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin, (ECF No.19), which recommends that the case be 11 dismissed with prejudice. The R&R further recommends that pending motions be denied as 12 moot.1 13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 14 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 16 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 17 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 19 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 20 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 22 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 24

25 1 Specifically, these pending motions include the Motion to E-File, (ECF No. 7); Motion for Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 9); and Motions to Strike, (ECF Nos. 13, 14). (See R&R at 5–6). 1 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, June 4, 2021, has passed. (See 2 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 19), is 5 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File in forma pauperis, 8 (ECF No. 2), is DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to E-file, (ECF No. 7), is DENIED as 10 moot. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 9), is 12 DENIED as moot. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Strike, (ECF Nos. 13, 14, and 20), 14 are DENIED as moot. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for More Time to Bring Plaintiffs Into 16 the Case, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED as moot. 17 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 18 DATED this __7___ day of June, 2021. 19 20 21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 22 United States District Court 23 24 25