Wang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Opinion

Meizhen Wang, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01097-JAD-BNW

Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and v. Recommendation Regarding Motion to Amend Complaint Costco Wholesale Corporation; Doe Equipment Operator, et al., [ECF Nos. 16, 20] Defendants

The magistrate judge has considered the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint1 and recommends that the motion be granted in part and denied in part: Plaintiff may amend the complaint to (1) clarify the type of equipment that caused the accident, and/or (2) add that she is pursuing a respondeat superior theory of liability, and/or (3) remove the Doe Equipment Operator, but she may not substitute in Leonardo Lopez as a party.2 The deadline for any party to object to that recommendation was yesterday, and no party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”3 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do.

1 ECF No. 16. 2 ECF No. 20. 3 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The motion to amend [ECF No. 16] is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in that recommendation.

5 U.S. DistrioiTudse Jennifer A, Dosey January 25, 2024 6 7 8 9 1]