Sesock v. D1 Kennels

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 HOLLY SESOCK, et al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-01466-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiffs Order Accepting Report and Recommendation 5 v. [ECF No. 49] 6 RAVEN DUDLEY, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS 9

10 On January 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts recommended that I strike the 11 first amended answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint (ECF No. 24) of defendants 12 Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley and have default entered against them because they have failed 13 to comply with three court orders. ECF No. 49. Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley did not object. 14 Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 15 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions 16 of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. 17 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the 18 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 19 otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 20 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley’s first amended 21 answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint (ECF No. 24) are stricken. 22 / / / / 23 / / / / 1 I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to enter default under Federal Rule of Civil 2|| Procedure 55(a) against defendants Raven Dudley and Chris Dudley with respect to the plaintiffs’ complaint. 4 DATED this 31st day of January, 2022. 5 OIE. 6 ANDREW P.GORDON 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23