Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C.

D. Nevada

Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 10, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02335·Unknown

Opinion

HORTENCIA BACA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02335-GMN-BNW vs. ORDER ADOPTING WEST VALLEY R.E., LLC, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 12), from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda K. Weksler recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 12). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See generally R&R) (setting a March 31, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 12), is } ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to close the case. Dated this 10 day of April, 2025. “hp, Gloria M. Mavarro, District Judge United S District Court 1]

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HORTENCIA BACA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02335-GMN-BNW vs. ORDER ADOPTING WEST VALLEY R.E., LLC, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 12), from United States Magistrate Judge Brenda K. Weksler recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 12). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See generally R&R) (setting a March 31, 2025, deadline for objections). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 12), is } ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to close the case. Dated this 10 day of April, 2025. “hp, Gloria M. Mavarro, District Judge United S District Court 1]

Page 2 of 2

Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C. (Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related