1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 WILBERT REESE, et al., ) 4 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-01468-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, ) 7 MILLER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, ) et al., ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Elayna Youcha, (ECF No. 26), which recommends, inter alia, that the stay 12 entered on December 3, 2019, be lifted; and that “Medport’s Second Motion to Quash, (ECF 13 No. 5), and Second Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 6), be granted such that Medport 14 has no present duty to respond to pending subpoenas, provided; however, that Medport shall 15 continue to preserve all documents sought through subpoenas prompting the Second Motion to 16 Quash.” 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.

(b)(1)(B); 19 D. Nev. Local 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.

(b)(1); D. Nev. 21 IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 23 Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all 24 . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 25 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 1 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., 2 United States v. Reyna–Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 3 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 26), is 6 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Medport’s Second Motion to Quash, (ECF No. 5), 8 and Second Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 6), are GRANTED. Medport has no 9 present duty to respond to pending subpoenas. Medport shall continue to preserve all 10 documents sought through subpoenas prompting the Second Motion to Quash. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be closed, without prejudice, based on 12 the ongoing stay and administrative closure of the Louisiana Action. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the lifting of the stay on all proceedings issued 14 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the parties may: (a) initiate new 15 proceedings in this Court; (b) refile any motion pending at the time the matter is closed by 16 adding a new caption page incorporating the previously filed motion; and (c) similarly refile 17 any pending Responses and Replies. In addition to electronic service through the Court’s 18 CM/ECF system, service of documents and any reissued subpoenas are to occur through 19 service on opposing counsel. Personal service of reissued subpoenas shall not be required. 20 DATED this ___2_8__ day of February, 2020. 21 22 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 23 United States District Court 24 25