Motley v. State of Nevada

Opinion

3 COURTNEY MOTLEY, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-02075-GMN-BNW 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING STATE OF NEVADA, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 88), 10 from United States Magistrate Brenda N. Weksler recommending that Plaintiff Courtney 11 Motley’s Amended Relief Request and Motion for Extra Garnishments, which Magistrate 12 Judge Weksler interprets as a Motion to Amend, be denied for failure to follow the applicable 13 local rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 88). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 18 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 19 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 20 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 21 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 22 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 23 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 24 district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 25 filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See 2 || generally R&R) (setting a May 9, 2025, deadline for objections). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 88), is 5 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Relief Request and Motion for 7 || Extra Garnishments, (ECF No. 83), is DENIED. 8 Dated this 30 day of May, 2025.

iy □□ Gloria M. arro, District Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2