YI LIN ZHENG v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00573
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 YI LIN ZHENG, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00573-GMN-MDC 5 vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE RECOMMENDATION 7 COMPANY,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 20), 11 of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III. The R&R recommends that 12 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 8), be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s second, third, 13 fourth, and fifth claims be DISMISSED without prejudice. (R&R 7:3–4, ECF No. 20). The 14 R&R further recommends that Plaintiff be granted until January 12, 2026, to either file a 15 stipulation to amend her complaint or a motion for leave to amend her complaint, together with 16 a copy of the proposed amendment. (Id. 7:5–7). 17 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 18 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 19 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 20 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 21 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 22 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 23 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. 24 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 25 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 1 |) 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 2 || district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 3 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See ECF No. 20) 5 || (setting a December 31, 2025, deadline for objections). The Court thus adopts the R&R in full. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 20), is 8 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 8), is 10 || GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, and fifth claims are 12 || DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file, no later than January 12, 2026, 14 || either a stipulation to amend her complaint or a motion for leave to amend her complaint, 15 || together with a copy of the proposed amendment. 16 17 DATED this 7 day of January, 2026. 18 ij, 19 4 py 1 Gloria M. xa arro, District Judge 20 United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2