LPL Financial, LLC v. Lossing
LPL Financial, LLC v. Lossing
Trial Court Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 LPL FINANCIAL, LLC, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00120-GMN-VCF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER CHRISTOPHER J. LOSSING, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 14), which recommends that Plaintiff LPL 12 Financial, LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 8), be granted in part1 13 and that final judgment be entered against Defendant Christopher Lossing (“Defendant”). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made.
Id.The Court may accept, reject, 18 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 20 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 21 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 22 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 23 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 24
25 1 The R&R recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment with respect to claims 1–7 of the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), but deny the Motion as to claim 8. (R&R 1:11–12). 1 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, June 16, 2020, has passed. 3 (Min. Order, ECF No. 14). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 14), is 6 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 8 8), is GRANTED in part. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to claims 1–7 9 of the Complaint. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to claim 8. 10 The Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 11 DATED this __2_2__ day of June, 2020. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Reference
- Status
- Unknown