Malone v. Saul

District Court, D. Nevada

Malone v. Saul

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA BONNI L. MALONE, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00150-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Denying Motion to v. Remand, and Granting Motion to Affirm 6]/ ANDREW SAUL, [ECF Nos. 35, 36, 41] 7 Defendant 8 On February 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Koppe recommended that I deny plaintiff Bonni Malone’s motion to remand and grant the defendant’s motion to affirm. ECF No. 41. Malone 10}| did not file an objection. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 15}| objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)). 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation 17|| (ECF No. 41) is accepted, plaintiff Bonni Malone’s motion to remand (ECF No. 35) is 18] DENIED, and the defendant’s motion to affirm (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 20 DATED this 19th day of February, 2020. 21

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown