Pasiecznik v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * *

9 William J. Pasiecznik Case No. 2:20-cv-02202-RFB-BNW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v.

12 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

13 Defendant.

14 15 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] of the 16 Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 3, 2021. 17 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific 19 written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 22 findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local 23 Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct 24 “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due 26 by August 17, 2021. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case 27 and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 28 . . . 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] is 2 | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 3 IT IS FURTHER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 10] is 4| DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand [ECF No. 11] 1s 6| DENIED.

DATED: September 19, 2021. 9 As I 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-