Republic Silver State Disposal Inc. v. Halloum

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA REPUBLIC OF SILVER STATE DISPOSAL ) INC., ) ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-02003-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, ) 6 vs. ) ORDER ) YOUSIF HALLOUM; IMAN HALLOUM; ) WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendants. ) 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe, (ECF No. 13), which recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice to Defendants seeking relief in state court.

13 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

24 Here, no objections1 were filed, and the deadline to do so, December 8, 2020, has Defendants Iman Halloum and Yousif Halloum filed a Motion to Strike the R&R, (ECF No. 15), which passed. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 13).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 13), is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending Motions, (ECF Nos. 7–9, 11–12, 14–15, 17, 19), are DENIED as moot.

8 The Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly.

9 DATED this __2_0__ day of January, 2021.

12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 13 United States District Court contends that the R&R is invalid because Defendants have not consented to resolution of this matter by a magistrate judge. Defendants’ contention is misplaced, as a magistrate judge may, without the consent of the parties, issue findings and recommendations to a district judge in aid of the district judge’s final resolution of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see, e.g., Riddle v. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157237, 2014 WL 5783825 (S.D. Cal. 2014).