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

7 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 2:18-CV-217 JCM (VCF)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 6773 GRANITE RIVER, 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter of Bank of New York Mellon v. Saticoy Bay, case 15 number 2:18-cv-00217-JCM-VCF. No objections have been filed, and the deadline for doing so 16 has passed. 17 Magistrate Judge Ferenbach ruled in his report and recommendation that Bank of New 18 York Mellon’s (“BNYM”) renewed motion to strike counterclaim (ECF No. 42) should be 19 granted because Saticoy Bay failed to file a timely answer and counterclaim. (ECF No. 43). 20 When a court denies a motion to dismiss, the submitting party has fourteen days to serve 21 a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). The magistrate judge found that after the 22 court denied Saticoy Bay’s motion to dismiss on January 15, 2019 (ECF No. 24), Saticoy Bay 23 waited until March 14, 2019—almost two months later—to submit its answer and counterclaim 24 (ECF No. 32). The magistrate judge then found that Saticoy Bay also waited to submit its 25 answer and counterclaim until after the court granted BNYM’s motion for summary judgement 26 and directed the clerk to “enter judgement accordingly and close the case.” (ECF No. 24 at 8). 27 28 1 Under local rule 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in 2 response to any motion…constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” The magistrate 3 judge found that Saticoy Bay failed to file a response to BNYM’s renewed motion to strike 4 counterclaim. (ECF No. 43). 5 Thus, the magistrate judge recommends granting BNYM’s renewed motion to strike 6 counterclaim. 7 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 8 recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b)(1). Where a party timely objects 9 to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 10 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 11

(b)(1). 12 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at 13 all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 14 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 15 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 16 States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 17 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 18 objections were made). 19 Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the 20 recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying 21 motion, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full. 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge 24 Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 43) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in 25 its entirety. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BNYM’s renewed motion to strike counterclaim (ECF 27 No. 42) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 28 . . . 1 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 2 DATED January 24, 2020. 3 Me □□□ ©. Atala 4 UNiTED'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 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 -3-