Yenovkian v. Petal Card, Inc.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA VEM YENOVKIAN, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00026-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case v. [ECF No. 21] PETAL CARD, INC., 7 Defendant 8 On December 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Couvillier recommended that I dismiss this case without prejudice because plaintiff Vem Yenovkian did not provide proof of service by the given deadline. ECF No. 21. Yenovkian did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 141 (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 15}| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Couvillier’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is accepted and plaintiff Vem Yenovkian’s complaint (ECF No. 11) is dismissed 18} without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendant. The clerk of court is instructed to 19}! close this case. 20 DATED this 7th day of January, 2025. 21 CA ANDREWP.GORDON. 3 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE