Wealthy Inc. v. Cornelia

Opinion

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

7 WEALTHY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-CV-1173 JCM (EJY)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 SPENCER CORNELIA, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 226). She recommends that plaintiffs’ motion to amend 15 their complaint (ECF No. 141) be DENIED, without prejudice. Specifically, she recommends 16 denying the motion until this court has resolved all pending dispositive motions. 17 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de 18 novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo 19 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 20 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he 21 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 22 objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Youchah’s R&R 25 (ECF No. 226) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED. 26 . . . 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 141) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice. 3 DATED June 21, 2023. 4 MB 0. Atala 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-